Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

As amended, to be considered tomorrow.

GREAT YARMOUTH PORT AND HAVEN BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

ABERDEEN CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS' WIDOWS' FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

EDINBURGH CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS' ANNUITY, ETC., FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Flour (Consumption)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food what was the consumption of flour per head of the civilian population in

1950; and how does this compare with 1938 and 1945.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Mr. Frederick Willey): The provisional estimate is 205 1b. per head as compared with 194 lb. before the war and 241 lb. in 1945.

Mr. Dodds: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing volume of complaints by local authorities about the wilful waste of flour and the increasing amount of bread that is being put into dustbins? Should not some appeal be made for economy in this respect?

Mr. Willey: The figures I have given do not seem to support that suggestion.

Syrup

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the present allocation of sugar to manufacturers only allows for the production of one 2-lb. tin of golden syrup or treacle per head of the population every seven months; and, in view of the demand for this food, if he will state when the 10 per cent. cut in sugar to manufacturers, made in January, 1950, is likely to be restored.

Mr. F. Willey: The production of golden syrup and treacle is nearly twice what it was in 1939. When the domestic ration was put up last January we should have liked to restore the small cut made in 1950, but we thought that housewives would rather have the sugar.

Mr. Dodds: Is my hon. Friend aware that at this time of rising prices, 1-lb. of strawberry jam costs the same as 2-lb.


of syrup? Is this not a good reason why the allocation should be increased as soon as possible?

Enforcement Officers, Shrewsbury

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Food on how many occasions his food enforcement officers in Shrewsbury have, since 1945, taken action which, if taken by police officers, would require the production of a warrant.

Mr. F. Willey: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the hon. Gentleman not reconsider this matter and try to get this information, in view of the fact that these gentlemen possess powers which are not possessed by the police, who are compelled to keep a very careful record of this sort of infringement of civil liberties?

Mr. Willey: To provide such information would be quite beyond our capacity. It would mean taking on more staff.

Cheese

Mr. Bell: asked the Minister of Food why some additional proportion of the present abundant milk supplies are not being used to maintain the cheese ration at three ounces a week.

Mr. F. Willey: The recent bad weather has caused a sharp fall in milk production and the balance available for manufacture has been 40 per cent. less in the first three months of this year than in the same period of 1950. Apart from essential production of milk powder for baby food, and some condensed milk for the Services, cheese is already given priority and milk is being diverted for its manufacture.

Mr. Bell: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there has, in fact, been plenty of milk for ordinary consumption in the last few months, and in view of this can he not divert some of it to maintain the cheese ration at what was, a couple of days ago, its legal level?

Mr. Willey: I have already explained that we are giving priority to cheese production, but that milk production this year has been 40 per cent. less than last year.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that in a few days' time he will be depleting the milk supplies still further by allowing, in response to clamour from the Opposition, the sale of cream at 6s. a pint? Why is my hon. Friend still pursuing this policy with regard to cream?

Mr. Bell: Does the Minister think that recent political developments have cleared the weather at all?

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Food on what grounds he asked cheese mongers to ignore the annulment by this House of the Statutory Instrument reducing the ration of cheese from three ounces to two.

Mr. F. Willey: My right hon. Friend made no such request to cheesemongers.

Mr. Keeling: Did not the right hon. Gentleman on 11th April express, in the House, the hope that traders would act responsibly and maintain the ration at two ounces? Was that not flouting the will of the House, and before he did that would it not have been better for the right hon. Gentleman to have come to the House and told us what he proposed to do?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food in what form he gave guidance on 10th April, 1951, to trade organisations on the subject of the then cheese ration; whether in so doing he made it clear that they were free to sell three ounces of cheese per ration book; and whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT any documents or correspondence issued by him on this subject.

Mr. F. Willey: The statement which was issued with my right hon. Friend's approval on 10th April, 1951, was as follows:

"The Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1951

Following last night's Vote in the House of Commons in favour of the Prayer against the Fats, Cheese and Tea (Rationing) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1951, the Ministry of Food state that constitutionally the annulment of this Order must await the making of the necessary Order in Council by His Majesty in Council. The Minister of Food is considering what further action should be taken, and intends to make a full statement in the House of Commons tomorrow."

There has been no other statement, except those made to the House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Was not that statement calculated to induce in the minds of traders the wholly fallacious belief that they were not free to provide three ounces of cheese on the ration, and can the hon. Gentleman say whether it had that intention?

Mr. Willey: The statement was calculated to explain the position as fully as we were able to do so at that time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food on what grounds he was unable to inform traders on 11th April, 1951, that they were free to sell three ounces of cheese per ration book.

Mr. F. Willey: On grounds of law and public interest. The Order fixing a two-ounce ration was no longer enforceable by proceedings, but that Order was not revoked by His Majesty in Council until the following day. In view of the fact that the supplies available would not sustain a ration greater than two ounces, to invite traders to sell a three-ounce ration would have shown disregard for the public interest.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how he reconciles that statement with the assurance given by the Foreign Secretary that the Government accepted the decision of the House on this issue?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In view of the importance of the statement of the Foreign Secretary on that occasion, will the Parliamentary Secretary reply to that question?

Mr. Willey: I understood the Foreign Secretary to say that he accepted the decision of the House, which, in fact, he did.

Mr. Harrison: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the attitude taken by shopkeepers on this matter shows considerably greater wisdom than that taken up by the Opposition?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Parliamentary Secretary contending that it is consistent with an assurance that the decision of the House had been accepted to seek to prevent traders implementing that decision?

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food when he will open negotiations with the New Zealand Dairy Produce Marketing Commission in order to regain for the United Kingdom the largest possible proportion of the New Zealand export of cheese.

Mr. F. Willey: Negotiations with the New Zealand Dairy Products Marketing Commission about butter and cheese from the 1951–52 production season will take place in June. The proportion of cheese to be exported to the United Kingdom is one of the matters to be discussed.

Mr. Hurd: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how the mind of the Minister is working on this matter? From what I gather he told us a fortnight ago we were getting the whole of the exportable surplus, but last week he said it was 90 to 97 per cent. What is the target to be when he starts discussions? Are we to get the whole of the exportable surplus, or not?

Mr. Willey: We shall endeavour to get as much dairy produce as possible.

Captain Crookshank: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the size of the exportable surplus very much depends on the price he offers?

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food how much milk has been made into cheese since 1st January compared with the same period in 1950.

Mr. F. Willey: Thirty million gallons of milk were made into cheese for the ration from 1st January to 7th April this year compared with 38¾ million gallons, in the same period in 1950.

Mr. Hurd: In view of the decline in home cheese making, would it not be wise to postpone the freeing of cream sales for a month or two, even if it does disappoint some visitors to the Festival?

Mr. Willey: As the hon. Member will know, we have postponed the production of cream.

Mr. Hurd: By one week.

Eggs

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Minister of Food what quantity of Eire's exportable surplus of eggs his Department proposes to take in 1951.

Mr. F. Willey: My Department has undertaken to buy the whole of the Irish Republic's exportable surplus of eggs for the year February, 1951, to January, 1952, but has agreed that in the five months, February to June, 1951, the Irish Republican Government, if it so desires, may sell up to 25 per cent. of the exportable surplus to other markets. So far, only trivial quantities have been sold to other markets and my Department has bought practically all the available supplies.

Squadron Leader Burden: Has the hon. Gentleman ensured that his Department will take the 1,250,000 cases of fresh eggs this spring that they undertook to take from Eire?

Mr. Willey: As I have already stated, we have undertaken to buy the whole exportable surplus.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Could my hon. Friend say what price we are paying for these eggs?

Mr. Sydney Silverman: rose——

Mrs. Mann: Surely I am entitled to an answer?

Mr. Willey: The Question on the Order Paper is about quantity and if my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) wishes to inquire about price she should put down a Question.

Mr. Silverman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind, and take full note of, the encouragement afforded him by the pressure now being exerted on him from hon. Members opposite to increase his commitments to bulk purchase?

Mr. Nabarro: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what is to become of Mr. James Dillon's threat to drench us with Irish eggs?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Food on what date in 1950 he permitted the free sale of eggs; and how many eggs had been supplied on each ration book from 1st January, 1950, to that date.

Mr. F. Willey: On 19th March. The average number of eggs per ration book from 1st January to 19th March, 1950, was 30.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food why he has failed to purchase large

quantities of shell eggs offered respectively by Canada and Eire during the 12 months ended 31st March, 1951.

Mr. F. Willey: No offer of eggs from Canada was made to my Department in the 12 months ended 31st March, 1951. If such an offer had been made it is very doubtful whether we could have afforded the necessary dollars to take advantage of it. The purchase of eggs from the Irish Republic was the subject of an agreement covering the contract year 1st February, 1950, to 31st January, 1951. Under the agreement my Department undertook to purchase the whole of the Republic's exportable surplus of eggs. With regard to the arrangements from 1st February, 1951, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Gillingham (Squadron Leader Burden) today.

Mr. Nabarro: Can the Parliamentary Secretary now tell the House why the intake of shell eggs from Ireland has been steadily decreasing in the last three years—since 1948—and what prospects there are for the immediate future?

Mr. Willey: The recent reduction has, as the hon. Gentleman knows, been due to the weather.

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Food the quantity of shell eggs respectively of home produced and imported origins distributed in the United Kingdom during the year ended 31st March, 1951; the total subsidy paid; and the amount of such subsidy per shell egg.

Mr. F. Willey: The quantity distributed by, or on behalf of, the Ministry of Food in the United Kingdom in the year ended 31st March, 1951, was 4,698 million home produced and 1,782 million imported. The total amount of subsidy was £29,739,000 which works out at approximately 1.1d. per egg.

Mr. Nabarro: Is it not a fact that the hens which laid these subsidised eggs during the last 12 months are now being slaughtered in their hundreds of thousands to provide table poultry in view of the shortage of meat? Will there not thus be a Ministerially promoted egg famine immediately this flush period is over?

Mr. Willey: No. That does not appear to be the fact.

Pork

Squadron Leader Burden: asked the Minister of Food what profit his Department made on frozen pork imported from France in 1950.

Mr. F. Willey: None, Sir.

Meat

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Food (1) what percentage of the carcase meat consumed in Great Britain during the latest period of 12 months for which figures are available, was supplied to canteens; and what percentage of the population are estimated to have consumed that allocation of carcase meat;
(2) what percentage of the carcase meat consumed in Great Britain during the latest period of 12 months for which figures are available, was supplied to hotels, restaurants and clubs; and what percentage of the population are estimated to have consumed that allocation of carcase meat.

Mr. F. Willey: Of the total quantity of ration quality carcase meat consumed during 1950 it is estimated that 3.9 per cent. was supplied to industrial canteens, 3.6 per cent. to school canteens, and 4.4 per cent. to hotels, restaurants and clubs. I am afraid it is not possible to make the estimate asked for in the second part of the Questions.

Mr. Renton: If it is not possible to make that estimate, how can the hon. Gentleman and his Department possibly tell whether or not canteens, hotels and restaurants are getting more or less than their fair share and whether or not the men who produce the meat—the agricultural workers—could get some more instead?

Mr. Willey: We could estimate the number of main meals supplied in these establishments but it is impossible to estimate precisely the number of people who enjoy these facilities.

Mr. Wood: asked the Minister of Food what are the comparative quantities of meat available to a child, including the benefit of school meals, and to a diabetic, respectively.

Mr. F. Willey: Five school meals plus the present domestic ration would

provide a child of five years or over with 23 pennyworth of meat a week. Diabetics get three rations at present amounting to 2s. 6d. a week.

Mr. Wood: Will the Minister reconsider the question of this very small ration for diabetics, bearing in mind the extremely small number of people concerned and the greatest possible need of their having more meat?

Mr. Willey: In these matters we act on the advice given to us by our medical advisers.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Food if, in forecasting a rise in the weekly meat ration to 1s. 8d. in August, he took into consideration the desirability of reserving in cold store for use late in the winter some of the peak production of beef and lamb fattened during the summer grazing season.

Mr. F. Willey: For technical reasons it would not be practicable for us to do this on a scale which would make any worthwhile addition to our reserves.

Mr. Hurd: Is there not the technical possibility of keeping back some home-killed meat in cold store, averaging out the supplies so that we do not run into another 8d. meat ration next winter?

Mr. Willey: We have looked into this matter carefully. Our cold storage capacity is not designed to freeze meat, and to provide two or three thousand tons of meat a week a cold storage capacity of 65,000 tons would be necessary.

Commander Noble: How was the right hon. Gentleman able to make his forecast for August when he told the House last week that he never knew how much home-killed meat would be available until nine days before the week in which it was to be issued?

Mr. Snadden: Is it not absurd to have a glut of meat from our home pastures in the middle of a meat famine? Will the hon. Gentleman not reconsider the matter of cold storage?

Mr. Willey: The main problem is not so much conserving our home killed supplies but of seeing that they are as widely spread as possible so that we can use cold storage space to store the imported meat.

Mr. John Foster: asked the Minister of Food why he has not imported camel meat which is available in the Near and Middle East, to supplement the whale, reindeer and beaver meats now being imported to vary the meat ration.

Mr. F. Willey: None of these meats is included in the meat ration, and the hon. and learned Member must rely upon private traders to satisfy his tastes.

Mr. Foster: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that if the Socialist Government have the hump camel meat makes an excellent diet?

Russian Salmon, Tyneside

Miss Irene Ward: asked the Minister of Food how many tins of Russian salmon have been delivered to Tyneside; and what was the average period they had been in stock.

Mr. F. Willey: About 313,000 tins were released for the North-Eastern area last month. They had been in stock for an average of about 24 months.

Miss Ward: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of the Russian salmon has been in stock for 11 years? What compensation is being offered to the stores who have been sent these tins?

Mr. Willey: I am not so aware. I am dealing with the tins to which the hon. Lady referred and it was usual in the trade to store such tins of salmon for many years.

Sheep, Scotland (Price)

Mr. Snadden: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that the recently announced differentiation of price as between shorn and unshorn sheep sent to collecting centres has caused confusion in Scotland and has affected marketing of fat sheep adversely; if he will state what is meant by shearlings; and whether hoggs, last year's lambs, are denied the extra 3d. premium if still unshorn.

Mr. F. Willey: I regret that, owing to a misunderstanding, the allowances for higher wool prices for certain classes of sheep in wool was not at first extended to lambs. I am glad to say that after further talks with the Agriculture Departments and the National Farmers' Unions, it has been decided that during the period

of differential prices for shorn and unshorn animals an additional payment of 3d. per lb. estimated dressed carcase weight is to be made this year for all sheep and lambs in wool, including last year's lambs but not sucking lambs. Shearlings are animals which have been shorn once.

Mr. Snadden: Will the hon. Gentleman see that proper publicity is given to that statement, as up to last week there was much confusion about the definition?

Mr. Willey: If there be confusion, we will do our best to see that the position is widely known.

Mr. Baldwin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the description of a shearling as being an animal which has been shorn once is not quite correct, because frequently lambs are shorn in the summer but are sold as lambs?

Mr. Willey: In our recent discussions we were advised by the National Farmers' Unions to retain the word, "shearlings."

Captain Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman make clear that payments go back to 2nd April?

Hides (Price)

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the need for effecting a reduction in the cost of living, he will instruct his Department not to withdraw hides from public auction on the grounds that the prices bid are too low.

Mr. F. Willey: During the past four weeks the average price of hides sold at Ministry of Food auction sales has fallen by over 25 per cent. and considerably reduced prices have, therefore, been accepted. Prices offered at two recent auction sales, according to the best advice available, were not considered to reflect the current price levels and certain lots were withdrawn in accordance with the published conditions of sale.

Mr. Odey: When considering this matter will the Minister bear in mind that in the past 10 months, since hides became a Government monopoly, the Government have made a profit of £6 million out of the sales of hides, which has been reflected in the increasing cost of leather and boots and shoes? Is it not the business of the Government to get prices down and not to maintain them?

Mr. Osborne: Even if it is true that hides have come down in price by 25 per cent. in the last month, is it not also true that the price went up from 19d. to 49d. in 10 months, during which the Government had a full monopoly? Is it not an abuse of monopolistic powers to refuse all supplies to the market?

Mr. Willey: The Government, like anyone else, have to look at the price level, and if it appears that there are buyers' rings which are bringing down prices below reasonable levels they must act in the same way as private traders would act.

Mr. Odey: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter again at he first opportunity.

Fats (Export to Tanganyika)

Mr. Alport: asked the Minister of Food how much margarine and cooking fats have been exported to Tanganyika from the United Kingdom during the last 12 months.

Mr. F. Willey: In the year ended 28th February, 1951, the latest period for which details are available, three hundredweights of margarine, 21 hundredweights of cooking fat and one hundredweight of lard were exported to Tanganyika.

Margarine Production

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Food how far margarine production will be reduced as a result of the shortage of sulphur.

Mr. F. Willey: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—[HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"]—informs me that if there is no serious worsening of the sulphur position, it should be possible to maintain supplies to edible oil refiners at their present level. We do not at present contemplate that any cut in margarine production will be necessary.

Mr. Grey: Has my hon. Friend seen recent Press reports, which suggested that margarine production would be reduced as a result of the shortage of sulphur; and does he not think that his reply will cause consternation in the Tory ranks because there will be one thing less for them to exploit?

Mr. Willey: I cannot take any responsibility for Press speculations.

Australian Canned Foods

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Food what restrictions he has put on firms in Leicester to prevent them from purchasing canned soups or other foods from Australia.

Mr. F. Willey: There are no restrictions on private firms purchasing from Australia canned soups or the majority of other processed foodstuffs; in fact, many processed foods, including canned soups, vegetables and jams, have been on open general licence since October, 1949. If the hon. Member can give me further details of any difficulties experienced by firms in Leicester, I shall be glad to look into the matter.

Mr. Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that the managing director of a chain of shops in Leicester declared that he was not able to make purchases in Australia, and will he see that that statement, which was made as recently as 30th March, is refuted by him?

Mr. Willey: I have seen the report in question. No British purchasing mission has been to Australia recently nor has my Department purchased, for some years, any of the commodities specified in the article.

Sir Waldron Smithers: How many times have import licences been refused for imports by private traders which were in competition with bulk purchase imports? Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the proposed import referred to in the question was refused by us and eventually went to Palestine?

Mr. Osborne: Is it not true that to import even under an open general licence a permit has to be obtained from the Treasury for the necessary funds, and that the stop is operated through the Treasury? Will the Parliamentary Secretary have this case investigated, as the statement was made in a debate broadcast by the B.B.C., and give the House the facts?

Mr. Willey: I have had this statement investigated and it appears to be unfounded.

Sugar

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Food how much sugar has been produced in the sugar beet campaign which has recently ended.

Mr. F. Willey: Production from the 1950–51 campaign amounted to 374,000 tons refined and 330,000 tons of raw sugar—equivalent, in all, to 677,000 tons of refined sugar.

Mr. Lewis: Can my hon. Friend say how these figures compare with the previous year?

Mr. Willey: Yes, Sir, they constitute a record.

Mr. E. Martin Smith: Can the Parliamentary Secretary estimate how much sugar was lost through delay in processing, because not enough factories were available to take the crop this year?

Mr. Willey: I can assure the House that very little was lost. The Corporation and all the employees did a grand job.

Mr. Nabarro: In view of the magnificent production record of the British Sugar Corporation in this matter, will the hon. Gentleman resist any future temptation to meddle in the industry by nationalisation?

Invalids (Tea Ration)

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Food whether he will provide an extra tea ration to chronic invalids.

Mr. F. Willey: On these matters my right hon. Friend takes the advice of the Food Rationing (Special Diets) Advisory Committee of the Medical Research Council, who are of the opinion that there is no medical condition requiring extra rations of tea for its treatment.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Member aware that I have not based this Question on medical condition, but on the fact that a cup of tea is one of the few pleasures which this type of person can get? It would not mean much tea. Would he not reconsider the whole question?

Mr. Willey: In these matters I think we should accept the advice of those best able to advise us.

Mr. Garner-Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman accept the advice of his own Minister and remember that "A little of what you fancy does you good"?

Lambs, Kirby Moorside (Grading)

Mr. Turton: asked the Minister of Food why, on 10th April, 1951, 117 lambs entered by Mr. Wood, Nawton, were not allowed to be graded at the Kirby Moorside Grading Centre on the ground that they had arrived 20 minutes late.

Mr. F. Willey: The latest time for the acceptance of stock grading at this centre is 1.0 p.m. On the day in question the grading of the sheep of all other producers at this centre was completed by 12 noon, but the grading panel stood by until 1.0 p.m. when they closed their grading lists. As Mr. Wood's sheep did not arrive until 1.20 p.m., too late for grading that day, they had to be refused, but exceptional arrangements were made by the Ministry's area officer, who was in the market, for these sheep to be accepted the following day at Pickering.

Mr. Turton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that producers are not given notice of these times, which are the responsibility of a ministerial whim, and that the decision of the area officer meant that these sheep had to be walked some 15 miles? Will he see that the rules are interpreted more reasonably so that animals do not suffer unnecessarily by being taken long distances?

Mr. Willey: It would appear, from the fact that other sheep were tendered before 12 noon, that the notice was well known, but I will look into the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Bridge, Llantarnam (Cost)

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Transport the total expenditure on the construction of the new bridge at Llantarnam, Monmouthshire; and whether the width of the new carriageway for vehicular traffic, excluding kerbs, is wider or narrower and, if so, by how much than the previous bridge.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): The total cost of this bridge, including the approach roads, is about £14,900. The carriageway of the new bridge, which is a temporary structure, is 3 ft. 9 in. narrower than that of the old one, which had no proper footpath. There is a 5 ft. footpath cantilevered outside the new bridge.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he has now so narrowed this bridge that it is virtually impossible for two buses to pass? Is not £14,000 a lot of money to spend on narrowing a bridge?

Mr. Barnes: This bridge is of the standard cantilevered Callender type, and because of this the carriageway cannot be varied. It is a temporary bridge as the hon. Gentleman knows.

Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Has the Minister asked for the views of the local Road Safety Committee as to how this bridge will affect road safety in that area?

Road Hauliers (Compensation)

Mr. Redmayne: asked the Minister of Transport (1) in how many cases has application for confirmation of compensation agreements of road haulage undertakings been made to the Transport Arbitration Tribunal; and how many cases have been confirmed;
(2) how many cases of compensation of road haulage undertakings in excess of £20,000 have been finally completed and paid.

Mr. Barnes: The number of cases in which applications for confirmation of compensation agreements had been filed with the Transport Arbitration Tribunal by 31st March, 1951, was 22. The tribunal had determined the amount of compensation payable in two cases, each over £20,000, and these have been completed and paid.

Mr. Redmayne: Is the Minister aware that these cases are taking over seven months to settle, which means that the Government have the use of a very large amount of capital which could be put to better uses by the private owner?

Mr. Barnes: This has not been the fault of the Transport Commission. Both sides have been rather reluctant to proceed until the Tribunal have determined certain principles.

Wood Blocks

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport in how many road repairs and replacements for which he was responsible during the last two years, wooden blocks have been laid as a road surface.

Mr. Barnes: No wood blocks have been used during the last two years for repairs and replacements on trunk roads for which I am responsible. On other roads wood blocks have not been used for repairing any substantial lengths, but only for patching roads already paved with that material, and for some bridges. The Barton Swing Bridge, 65 yards in length was repaired with wood blocks last year.

Mr. Shepherd: What is the right hon. Gentleman doing to prevent the use of this lethal surface by local authorities?

Mr. Barnes: My reply clearly demonstrates that that process is not continuing.

Fluorescent Lighting

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the dazzling effect of vertical fluorescent lighting now used in shop windows; and what steps he intends to take to eliminate this danger to road safety.

Mr. Barnes: I have no evidence that this form of lighting is likely to cause danger through dazzle, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars of any cases he has in mind I will look into them.

Mr. Shepherd: Would the right hon. Gentleman take a trip to the north end of Bond Street this evening, where he will be satisfied that the danger is real?

Mr. Barnes: I have had no complaint about this form of dazzle.

Retired Railwaymen (Superannuation)

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the de creased value of the superannuation allowances paid to retired railway clerks due to the rising cost of living; and whether he will institute an investigation into this matter.

Mr. Barnes: I am aware, of course, of the effect of rising prices on those living on fixed incomes, but if an investigation were undertaken it would be a matter for the British Transport Commission and not for me.

Captain Ryder: I am not clear whether the Minister holds himself responsible for the welfare of these employees of the railways or not, but if the whole of the


assets of the railways are taken over, should not the liabilities also be taken over? Would not it be wise to have an inquiry?

Mr. Barnes: I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that these funds are already in heavy deficit, but in any case it is a matter for the Commission to determine.

Mr. David Renton: When the right hon. Gentleman says that this is a matter for the Commission to determine does he ignore the pledges he gave when the Transport Bill was before the House, that those whose superannuation funds were taken over from the old railway companies would have their pensions adequately protected?

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Member is wrong. I said that they would be protected as they were taken over, but this suggests an alteration. They have been fully safeguarded as they prevailed at the time the Commission took over.

Sir John Mellor: How can the Minister now repudiate the responsibility for this matter, when about 18 months ago he debated it with me at some length upon the Adjournment?

Mr. Barnes: Whenever a matter affecting transport is raised on the Floor of the House, I have to put the case of the Transport Commission, but it does not affect the position that if any adjustment is to be made in this matter it is their responsibility.

Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the freight rate from 10 to 12 per cent. to meet additional pensions for these people?

Mr. Barnes: That appears to me to be another matter.

Captain Ryder: Would the right hon. Gentleman also represent the case of the railway superannuitants to the Transport Commission?

Lorries (Convoys)

Captain Ryder: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in the interests of road safety, he will issue regulations to discourage the tendency of lorries to operate in convoys.

Mr. Barnes: I do not think that regulations would be appropriate. In my view

the Highway Code is the proper instrument for encouraging safe and considerate behaviour on the roads in matters of this kind. Advice is given in paragraph 57 of the Code that drivers of a series of large vehicles should space their vehicles so as to facilitate overtaking by faster traffic.

Captain Ryder: As British Road Services are now guilty of this practice, will the right hon. Gentleman call the attention of the Road Haulage Executive to the matter?

Mr. Barnes: I am not aware that British Road Services are guilty. I travel on the roads as much as anyone, and I would say, generally speaking, that drivers of heavy lorries are among the best and most considerate drivers on the road.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Although that may well be the case, does not the right hon. Gentleman know, from his own experience, that a great many of these long and heavy vehicles tend to bunch together on main roads, and does he not think that it would be useful to send a suggestion of this kind to the Road Haulage Executive?

Mr. Barnes: It is not always the deliberate purpose of heavy lorry drivers to bunch together. More often than not road conditions produce this bunching as does overtaking and cutting-in.

Captain Ryder: In view of the danger on the roads caused by this practice, will the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter and use his influence where he can?

Mr. Barnes: Certainly. No one has a greater interest than myself in ensuring that the Code is observed.

Stray Sheep (South Wales)

Mr. George Thomas: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the danger caused to pedestrians and motorists in the South Wales valleys by the large number of sheep allowed to roam the roads; and whether, in the interests of the prevention of road accidents, he will seek a report on this matter from his Advisory Committee on the Prevention of Road Accidents.

Mr. Barnes: I have received no reports from the motoring organisations or elsewhere suggesting that straying sheep—[HON. MEMBERS: "Black sheep."]—are


causing serious danger to road traffic in South Wales and I doubt whether this matter could with advantage be referred to the Committee on Road Safety. But if my hon. Friend will be good enough to let me have more particulars, I will look into the matter further.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently there has been a fatal accident—[Laughter.] It would seem that I am unfortunate in the day that this Question has reached the Order Paper, but it is no laughing matter. Would my right hon. Friend carry out the request I have made in my Question?

Mr. Llewellyn: Before any action is decided upon, will the right hon. Gentleman discuss this matter with those of his right hon. Friends who are more familiar with the problems of straying Welsh sheep than he is?

Oral Answers to Questions — B.B.C. (PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS)

Mr. Spearman: asked the Prime Minister which Minister is now responsible for answering Questions on matters of general policy affecting operations of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I have been asked to reply. For the time being, Questions on this subject, of a kind which cannot appropriately be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General, should be put down to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Spearman: As the Postmaster-General has not yet succeeded in bringing about any improvement of the persistently bad reception on the Yorkshire coast, would the right hon. Gentleman himself give an assurance that he will have technical inquiries made, and made before October when, I understand, he intends once more to give himself the pleasure of a visit to Scarborough?

Mr. Morrison: That has hardly anything to do with the Question on the Paper. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would put it down.

Mr. Summers: Would the right hon. Gentleman say what he means by the phrase "for the time being"?

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Pending further resignations.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)

Mr. Fitzroy Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what status is accorded by the Chinese authorities to His Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Peking and His Majesty's Consul-General in Shanghai.

The Minister of State (Mr. Younger): The Chinese Government accepted His Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires in that capacity to discuss preliminary and procedural matters on the establishment of diplomatic relations. Pending the establishment of such relations the Chinese Government have not accepted His Majesty's Consular Officers in China, including His Majesty's Consul-General at Shanghai, in their official capacity.

Mr. Maclean: Is His Majesty's Consul-General in Shanghai free to leave China as and when he likes?

Mr. Younger: I should like notice about the details, but we certainly claim that he has the right. We have had difficulties both with exit and entry permits from and to China recently.

Mr. Maclean: Does His Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires in Peking enjoy full diplomatic status?

Mr. Younger: No, Sir. I think not.

Sir Herbert Williams: Can the hon. Gentleman say how long it is since a foreign government has refused to recognise the Government of this country de jure?

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC CORPS, CZECHOSLOVAKIA (RESTRICTIONS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement about the new restrictions imposed in Czechoslovakia on British diplomats.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Member is no doubt referring to the recently imposed regulations restricting contacts between Czechoslovak authorities and the representatives of foreign countries in Czechoslovakia. According to these regulations all matters of foreign policy and foreign trade are to be concentrated in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Foreign Trade. Czechoslovak State offices and authorities are instructed


not to act upon any application or personal intervention on the part of diplomatic missions but to forward all such matters to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Mr. Keeling: Can the Minister confirm the report in "The Times" that this restriction applies not only to all diplomats but to all foreigners, even those from Communist countries, and is any protest being made either by the British Ambassador or by the diplomatic corps?

Mr. Younger: I cannot say whether it refers to all private citizens. I understand that it refers to all foreign diplomats without distinction of country. Although this is an inconvenience, it is not really a very drastic restriction. It really means that all foreign relations are to be channelled through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Prague, which is not altogether unusual.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-POLISH TRADE AGREEMENT

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the £400,000 due under the Anglo-Polish Trade Agreement of January, 1949, has now been received; and if any explanation of the delay in payment has been offered to him.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action has been taken by His Majesty's Government consequent upon the refusal of the Polish Government to pay the first instalment of monies owing under the Anglo-Polish Agreement of 1949.

Mr. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been received to the inquiries made by His Majesty's Ambassador in Warsaw regarding the delay in payment of the sum of £400,000 due to be paid on 31st March, 1951.

Mr. Younger: As I told the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) on 9th April, His Majesty's Ambassador in Warsaw has been instructed to inquire from the Polish authorities whether early payment may be expected. No reply has yet been received to that inquiry, nor has the money been received. His Majesty's Ambassador has been asked for a report on the position.

Oral Answers to Questions — FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCIES

Mr. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of his failure to get a settlement through the International Court, he will say what further steps he proposes to take in order to secure the withdrawal from British territory of the Argentine personnel at present stationed on Deception Island.

Mr. Younger: His Majesty's Government still consider that this, like all other international disputes, ought to be settled by peaceful negotiation and hold to their view that the best method is reference to the International Court.

Mr. Maclean: Is the Minister aware that the supine attitude of the Government in this matter simply encourages foreign governments to set themselves up on British territory whenever they feel like it, and that that is doing very grave harm to British prestige? Will he not take more effective measures than that of referring the matter to the International Court, which he took two years ago and which did not serve any useful purpose at all?

Mr. Younger: I can assure the House that I am well aware that this is a most unsatisfactory situation. I cannot agree that the Government have adopted a supine attitude. We consider that international disputes should be settled in a peaceful manner by negotiation, perhaps especially disputes involving disputed jurisdiction. It is difficult to see at present what more drastic measures the hon. Gentleman has in mind.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Have His Majesty's Government not considered the possibility of placing the Minister of Food in temporary charge of the food supplies of the area concerned?

Mr. Paton: Will my hon. Friend continue his efforts to persuade the Opposition that Lord Palmerston has been a long time dead?

Colonel Ropner: Can the Minister say whether the Argentine Government hold the same view as the British Government and whether they, too, are prepared to submit this question to the International Court?

Mr. Younger: Unfortunately, it is the case that we have not been able to persuade them to accept the jurisdiction of the Court in this respect.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind, when recommending that the matter should be put before the International Court, the very long time which the Court has so far taken to deal with such complaints as that against Albania, for instance? Will he consider whether there is not a better and quicker machinery than the International Court to deal with matters such as this?

Mr. Younger: The best way would be to reach agreement without going to court. If we have to go to some international authority or tribunal, I know of nothing which would be much more expeditious.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Kidnapping, Berlin

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to two kidnapping attempts by the Communist People's Party inside the British Sector of Berlin, one of which was successful; and whether a reply has been received to the protest addressed by the British Commandant to the Soviet representative on the Control Commission at Berlin.

Mr. Younger: The answer to both questions is "Yes, Sir." The Soviet Commandant's reply is entirely unsatisfactory in that it does not promise the return of the kidnapped man to the British Sector. The British Commandant has, however, made it quite clear that he will not tolerate any illegal action by members of the Soviet zone or East Berlin police inside the British Sector.

Professor Savory: In view of these constant outrages, will not the hon. Gentleman take up the matter through the British Ambassador in Moscow and make a very decided protest?

Mr. Younger: I will consider that.

Visitors to U.K. (Currency)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what currency arrangements are being made to enable

Germans to travel to this country during the Festival of Britain; and what steps are being taken to bring the importance of the Festival to their attention.

Mr. Younger: The grant of currency for Germans to travel outside Germany is entirely a matter for the German Federal Government. So far as I am aware, no special currency allocation has been made to enable Germans to visit this country during the Festival. Full publicity is given to the importance of the Festival in all zones of Germany through the Press, the radio and other publicity media.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH CONSULATE, TAIPEH (INCIDENT)

Mr. Harrison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the incident at the British Consulate, Taipeh, Taiwan.

Mr. A. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the Union Jack was hauled down from the roof of the British Consulate in Formosa by Chinese Nationalist demonstrators whilst Chinese Nationalist police were standing by; and whether a protest has been lodged with the Chinese Nationalist authorities.

Mr. Younger: His Majesty's Consul at Tamsui has reported that, on the morning of 17th April, about 40 students entered the Consulate, hauled down the Union Jack and hoisted the Nationalist Flag. About half an hour later, the police persuaded the students to leave. A few slogans were painted on the walls, but no damage was done to the Consulate and none of the staff was harmed. His Majesty's Consul further reported that he had lodged a protest with the Provincial Governor.

Mr. Harrison: Can my hon. Friend say for how long any considerable number of Chinese students has been in this area?

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY

Mr. Somerset de Chair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in what circumstances His Majesty's Government waived their claim under paragraph 4 of the Annexe to Article 8 of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936 under


which the Egyptian Government was responsible for constructing at its own expense the accommodation, water supply and convalescent camp in the Canal Zone referred to in paragraph 3.

Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. His Majesty's Government have never waived this claim.

Mr. de Chair: Do we understand by that reply that the bulk of the accommodation for troops in the Canal Zone was paid for by the Egyptian Government, or does the hon. Gentleman mean that we have not waived our right to claim for it at some time?

Mr. Younger: The latter is the correct view. We have not waived our right to claim for it. It was explained on a previous occasion that this accommodation has not been paid for.

Mr. de Chair: Would not this have been an exceptionally suitable subject for a counter-claim against Egypt's sterling balances, and why was not that claim pressed at that time?

Mr. Younger: As the hon. Gentleman knows, there are a great many claims of various kinds outstanding between the two countries. What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is that we should not attempt to settle any one of them until we can settle them all, and that would really make it too difficult.

Mr. de Chair: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) whether agreement has at any time been reached or is now being discussed as to the person or body of persons who shall arbitrate under Article 16 of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, in case of the high contracting parties being unable to agree at the end of the 20-year period upon the terms of the revised treaty, which shall in any event provide for the continuation of the alliance in accordance with the principles contained in Articles 4, 5, 6 and 7;
(2) whether agreement has at any time been reached or is now being discussed as to the person or body of persons who shall arbitrate under Article 8 of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, as to the question whether the presence of

British Forces in the Canal Zone is no longer necessary after the 20-year period envisaged in Article 16, owing to the fact that the Egyptian Army is in a position to ensure by its own resources the liberty and entire security of navigation of the Suez Canal.

Mr. Younger: The answer to both these Questions is, "No, Sir."

Mr. de Chair: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there have been persistent reports, both in the United States and Egyptian Press, that H.M. Government have submitted proposals to the Egyptian Government that we would withdraw our troops in the Canal Zone before the expiration of the Treaty, in an attempt to get a mutual defence agreement; and, since that is not wanted in Egypt, is it not a fact that the negotiations cannot be expected to succeed, and are thought by hon. Members on this side of the House to be extremely ill-timed in any event? Can he deny that.

Mr. Younger: I think the hon. Gentleman is trying to lead me into revealing the nature of the discussions in Egypt, which both parties have agreed to keep confidential for the time being.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHAPEL DEDICATION, LONDON (U.S.A. VISITORS)

Mr. Henry Hopkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to offer hospitality in the United Kingdom to the relatives of the 28,000 members of the United States Forces based on this country who gave their lives in the last war, and to whom the Jesus Chapel of St. Paul's Cathedral is being dedicated on 4th July next.

Mr. Younger: The arrangements for the accommodation and entertainment in the United Kingdom of relatives coming from the United States for this ceremony are in the hands of the Council of the American Memorial Chapel Fund and the English-Speaking Union. I understand that the numbers to be expected are not yet known. The question of a Government reception for them is under consideration.

Mr. Hopkinson: Is it not a fact that it was suggested that the Government should provide accommodation for these visitors, who will not number more than 500 at the outside? Is not that a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances?

Mr. Younger: That is a matter of opinion, of course. I do not think that one would expect that, in corresponding circumstances, visitors from this country who go abroad would be paid for by the Government of the country to which they were going.

Mr. Hopkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which United States war leaders are being invited to attend the Dedication of the Jesus Chapel of St. Paul's Cathedral on 4th July; and whether it is intended that they should be the guests of His Majesty's Government during their visit to this country.

Mr. Younger: Invitations to this ceremony are being issued by the Council of the American Memorial Chapel Fund and the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. I understand that some 18 United States war leaders are being invited; I have not yet received the full list of names. His Majesty's Government intend that those who are able to accept the invitation should be their guests while in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRIA (ARRESTS)

Professor Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the frequent kidnapping of Austrian citizens in the International Zone of Vienna by, or on behalf of, the Soviet authorities; and whether he will see that a protest is made through the Control Commission to the Soviet representative.

Mr. Younger: It is reported that five recent cases of arbitrary arrest are at present under investigation by the Austrian authorities, that one of the arrests occurred in the International Sector and that the Austrian Government intends to protest to the Allied Council. When this protest has been considered by the Allied Council, it will be for the Western elements of the Council to decide, in the light of the facts that emerge, whether a protest should be made to the Soviet representative.

Professor Savory: Has the attention of the hon. Gentleman been called to the statement of an Austrian Minister that these kidnappings take place daily? As I have frequently called the attention of the Government to them, cannot some drastic measures at last be taken?

Mr. Younger: It is easier to say that drastic measures should be taken than it is to say what they should be for this purpose. I entirely agree that there have been a number of these cases, and we are most perturbed about them. In many cases, protests have been lodged.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAB REFUGEES

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what attitude His Majesty's Government is adopting in United Nations regarding those Arab refugees who still hope to be returned to their former homes in Palestine; whether this attitude is shared by other member States; and what steps are being taken to implement decisions.

Mr. Younger: His Majesty's Government consider that Palestine refugees wishing to return to their former homes and to live at peace with their neighbours have the right to do so. His Majesty's Government believe, however, that it is in the interests of the refugees themselves that the majority of them should, without prejudice to this right or to their right to receive compensation, settle among their brethren in Arab countries. These views were clearly expressed at the United Nations, and the voting on the resolutions affecting refugees, of which the United Kingdom Delegation were co-sponsors, indicates that they are shared to a considerable extent by other Governments. As regards the implementation of these resolutions, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency is setting up a Re-integration Fund to finance the resettlement projects, and the Palestine Conciliation Commission is establishing an office which will pay special attention to the question of compensation for refugees.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many people who are responsible for trying to help these people in Arab countries are of the opinion that to hold out hope of


return to these people is completely unrealistic and merely prolonging the suffering which they are now undergoing? Further, would he not look into the whole of the Government's policy on this matter, with a view to trying finally to settle these people somewhere as quickly as possible?

Mr. Younger: I think that the Government's policy does take that fully into account. We consider that the right to return home should be preserved, and we have made it quite clear that, in practice, the sensible thing is to settle them in Arab countries.

Mr. R. A. Butler: In view of the statements made in recent debates about the need for adequate finance, can the hon. Gentleman say whether adequate finance is forthcoming to back this venture?

Mr. Younger: No, Sir; I cannot say that finance is adequate. It has fallen far short of the calculations of what was thought to be necessary, while the numbers of refugees, on which those calculations were made, have turned out to be higher than expected.

Mr. Janner: Would my hon. Friend use his good offices to see that some measure of peace is arranged between the Arab States and Israel, because that would be the best way of dealing with the difficulty?

Mr. Younger: We have always made it plain that the only thing that can lead to a solution is a decrease in the tension existing between Israel and the neighbouring States.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, on this matter, the Government are pursuing a policy which is completely impracticable, and that in the circumstances it is merely prolonging the agony of these people, who have already suffered enough?

Mr. Younger: We are pursuing no such policy. Our policy is that these people should be resettled in neighbouring countries, where it is possible to do so. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is inviting us to say that these people have no right to return to their own homes.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-COMMUNIST PROPAGANDA

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the existing machinery for conducting psychological warfare designed to spread the truth and expose Communist untruth; and what improvements he hopes to introduce.

Mr. Younger: The official machinery consists of the information services of the Foreign Office, Colonial Office and Commonwealth Relations Office together with the services supplied by the Central Office of Information, the whole operating under the direction of the responsible Ministers working in close collaboration. An important part is also played by the overseas services of the B.B.C., who maintain very close contact with these Departments, and by the British Council acting on behalf of the Colonial Office and Commonwealth Relations Office and in consultation with the Foreign Office. As regards the second paragraph of the Question, as the hon. Member was informed on 18th April, these existing arrangements are adequate, and I have no announcement to make regarding improvements at the present time.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of many people experienced in this matter, the present arrangements are very far from being adequate? Would he say what steps His Majesty's Government are taking to see how the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and other defence organisations can be brought into this matter, and, possibly, have the whole of this very important work transferred to them?

Mr. Younger: I think that the question relating to the North Atlantic Treaty goes wholly beyond the Question on the Order Paper, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman has any specific criticism or suggestion to make I shall be glad to consider it.

Sir W. Smithers: When the hon. Gentleman refers to the B.B.C., will he have a responsible person to censor broadcasts before they are given, because many of the broadcasts have been very Left Wing?

Oral Answers to Questions — BRIXHAM TRAWLER (LOSS)

Mrs. Middleton: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport whether he has any information which he can give to the House concerning the loss of the trawler "Twilit Waters" off the coast of Cornwall between 11th and 20th April.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Yes, Sir. According to reports which have appeared in the Press the motor trawler "Twilit Waters," of 113 tons gross, left Brixham, her port of registry, with a crew of nine on 8th April to fish between Start Point, Devon, and Bishop's Rock. She was last heard of in Mount's Bay, Cornwall, on 11th April, when she communicated with her owners by radio. The "Twilit Waters" was due back at Brixham on 19th April; on 20th April, widely scattered wreckage, including a lifebuoy bearing the ship's name, was found at sea in an area south and southwest of the Lizard. I have made arrangements for a preliminary inquiry to be held at once, and investigations are now proceding. The House would, I am sure, wish me to state on its behalf that they share the grave anxiety of the relatives and dependants of those who sailed in the ship.

Mrs. Middleton: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his sympathetic reply, which will be much appreciated by the relatives of these men in their grievous loss, may I ask if he will assure the House that, pending the results of the inquiry, he will take every step necessary to see that the dependants of the men whose lives have been in jeopardy, or are lost, are properly provided for?

Mr. Barnes: I am not sure that responsibility for the dependants rests upon myself. The preliminary inquiries are really to ascertain whether a formal and complete inquiry should follow.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEW MEMBER SWORN

Sir Albert Newby Braithwaite, D.S.O., M.C., for Harrow, West.

PERSONAL STATEMENT

The Minister of Works (Mr. Stokes): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my regret for passing into the Division Lobby on Thursday

night after the order had been given for the doors to be locked. Although I was in my room, I did not hear the first warning signals. I offer my sincere apologies both to you, Sir, and to the House. I have already made an explanation, and expressed my regret, to the Deputy-Chairman of Ways and Means.

Captain John Crowder: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether you could consider asking the Minister of Works to have a lever fitted on the double doors, so that they both shut together?

Mr. Speaker: That is a question which I suggest that the hon. and gallant Member should put on the Order Paper to the Minister of Works.

MR. ANEURIN BEVAN (STATEMENT)

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: Mr. Speaker, it is one of the immemorial courtesies of the House of Commons that when a Minister has felt it necessary to resign his office, he is provided with an opportunity of stating his reasons to the House. These occasions are always exceedingly painful, especially to the individual concerned, because no Member ought to accept office in a Government without a full consciousness that he ought not to resign it for frivolous reasons. He must keep in mind that his association is based upon the assumption that everybody in Government accepts the full measure of responsibility for what it does.
The courtesy of being allowed to make a statement in the House of Commons is peculiarly agreeable to me this afternoon, because, up to now, I am the only person who has not been able to give any reasons why I proposed to take this step, although I notice that almost every single newspaper in Great Britain, including a large number of well-informed columnists, already know my reasons.
The House will recall that in the Defence debate I made one or two statements concerning the introduction of a Defence programme into our economy, and, with the permission of the House, I should like to quote from that speech which, I assumed at the time, received the general approval of the House. I said:
The fact of the matter is, as everybody knows, that the extent to which stockpiling has already taken place, the extent to which the


civil economy is being turned over to defence purposes in other parts of the world, is dragging prices up everywhere. Furthermore, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that if we turn over the complicated machinery of modern industry to war preparation too quickly, or try to do it too quickly, we shall do so in a campaign of hate, in a campaign of hysteria, which may make it very difficult to control that machine when it has been created.
It is all very well to speak about these things in airy terms, but we want to do two things. We want to organise our defence programme in this country in such a fashion as will keep the love of peace as vital as ever it was before. But we have seen in other places that a campaign for increased arms production is accompanied by a campaign of intolerance and hatred and witch-hunting. Therefore, we in this country are not at all anxious to imitate what has been done in other places."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 738.]
I would also like to direct the attention of the House to a statement made by the Prime Minister in placing before the House the accelerated armaments programme. He said:
The completion of the programme in full and in time is dependent upon an adequate supply of materials, components and machine tools. In particular, our plans for expanding capacity depend entirely upon the early provivision of machine tools, many of which can only be obtained from abroad."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1951; Vol. 483, c. 584.]
Those cautionary words were inserted deliberately in the statements on defence production because it was obvious to myself and to my colleagues in the Government that the accelerated programme was conditional upon a number of factors not immediately within our own control.
It has for some time been obvious to the Members of the Government and especially to the Ministers concerned in the production Departments that raw materials, machine tools and components are not forthcoming in sufficient quantity even for the earlier programme and that, therefore, the figures in the Budget for arms expenditure are based upon assumptions already invalidated. I want to make that quite clear to the House of Commons; the figures of expenditure on arms were already known to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be unrealisable. The supply Departments have made it quite clear on several occasions that this is the case and, therefore, I begged over and over again that we should not put figures in the Budget on account of defence expenditure which would not be

realised, and if they tried to be realised would have the result of inflating prices in this country and all over the world.
It is now perfectly clear to any one who examines the matter objectively that the lurchings of the American economy, the extravagant and unpredictable behaviour of the production machine, the failure on the part of the American Government to inject the arms programme into the economy slowly enough, have already caused a vast inflation of prices all over the world, have disturbed the economy of the western world to such an extent that if it goes on more damage will be done by this unrestrained behaviour than by the behaviour of the nation the arms are intended to restrain.
This is a very important matter for Great Britain. We are entirely dependent upon other parts of the world for most of our raw materials. The President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply in two recent statements to the House of Commons have called the attention of the House to the shortage of absolutely essential raw materials. It was only last Friday that the Minister of Supply pointed out in the gravest terms that we would not be able to carry out our programme unless we had molybdenum, zinc, sulphur, copper and a large number of other raw materials and non-ferrous metals which we can only obtain with the consent of the Americans and from other parts of the world.
I say therefore with the full solemnity of the seriousness of what I am saying, that the £4,700 million arms programme is already dead. It cannot be achieved without irreparable damage to the economy of Great Britain and the world, and that therefore the arms programme contained in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget is already invalidated and the figures based on the arms programme ought to be revised.
It is even more serious than that. The administration responsible for the American defence programme have already announced to the world that America proposes to provide her share of the arms programme not out of reductions in civil consumption, not out of economies in the American economy but out of increased production; and already plans are envisaged that before very long the American economy will be expanded for arms production by a percentage


equal to the total British consumption, civil and arms.
And when that happens the demands made upon the world's precious raw materials will be such that the civilian economy of the Western world outside America will be undermined. We shall have mass unemployment. We have already got in Great Britain underemployment. Already there is short-time working in many important parts of industry and before the middle of the year, unless something serious can be done, we shall have unemployment in many of our important industrial centres. That cannot be cured by the Opposition. In fact the Opposition would make it worse—far worse.
The fact is that the western world has embarked upon a campaign of arms production upon a scale, so quickly, and of such an extent that the foundations of political liberty and Parliamentary democracy will not be able to sustain the shock. This is a very grave matter indeed. I have always said both in the House of Commons and in speeches in the country—and I think my ex-colleagues in the Government will at least give me credit for this—that the defence programme must always be consistent with the maintenance of the standard of life of the British people and the maintenance of the social services, and that as soon as it became clear we had engaged upon an arms programme inconsistent with those considerations, I could no longer remain a Member of the Government.
I therefore do beg the House and the country, and the world, to think before it is too late. It may be that on such an occasion as this the dramatic nature of a resignation might cause even some of our American friends to think before it is too late. It has always been clear that the weapons of the totalitarian States are, first, social and economic, and only next military; and if in attempting to meet the military effect of those totalitarian machines, the economies of the western world are disrupted and the standard of living is lowered or industrial disturbances are created, then Soviet Communism establishes a whole series of Trojan horses in every nation of the western economy.
It is, therefore, absolutely essential if we are to march forward properly, if

we are to mobilise our resources intelligently, that the military, social and political weapons must be taken together. It is clear from the Budget that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has abandoned any hope of restraining inflation. It is quite clear that for the rest of the year and for the beginning of next year, so far as we can see, the cost of living is going to rise precipitously. As the cost of living rises, the industrial workers of Great Britain will try to adjust themselves to the rising spiral of prices, and because they will do so by a series of individual trade union demands a hundred and one battles will be fought on the industrial field, and our political enemies will take advantage of each one. It is, therefore, impossible for us to proceed with this programme in this way.
I therefore beg my colleagues, as I have begged them before, to consider before they commit themselves to these great programmes. It is obvious from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech that we have no longer any hope of restraining inflation. The cost of living has already gone up by several points since the middle of last year, and it is going up again. Therefore, it is no use pretending that the Budget is just, merely because it gives a few shillings to old age pensioners, when rising prices immediately begin to take the few shillings away from them.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
It is no use saying "Hear, hear" on the opposite side of the House. The Opposition have no remedy for this at all. But there is a remedy here on this side of the House if it is courageously applied, and the Budget does not courageously apply it. The Budget has run away from it. The Budget was hailed with pleasure in the City. It was a remarkable Budget. It united the City, satisfied the Opposition and disunited the Labour Party—all this because we have allowed ourselves to be dragged too far behind the wheels of American diplomacy.
This great nation has a message for the world which is distinct from that of America or that of the Soviet Union. Ever since 1945 we have been engaged in this country in the most remarkable piece of social reconstruction the world has ever seen. By the end of 1950 we had, as I said in my letter to the Prime Minister, assumed the moral leadership


of the world. [Interruption.] It is no use hon. Members opposite sneering, because when they come to the end of the road it will not be a sneer which will be upon their faces. There is only one hope for mankind, and that hope still remains in this little island. It is from here that we tell the world where to go and how to go there, but we must not follow behind the anarchy of American competitive capitalism which is unable to restrain itself at all, as is seen in the stockpiling that is now going on, and which denies to the economy of Great Britain even the means of carrying on our civil production. That is the first part of what I wanted to say.
It has never been in my mind that my quarrel with my colleagues was based only upon what they have done to the National Health Service. As they know, over and over again I have said that these figures of arms production are fantastically wrong, and that if we try to spend them we shall get less arms for more money. I have not had experience in the Ministry of Health for five years for nothing. I know what it is to put too large a programme upon too narrow a a base. We have to adjust our paper figures to physical realities, and that is what the Exchequer has not done.
May I be permitted, in passing, now that I enjoy comparative freedom, to give a word of advice to my colleagues in the Government? Take economic planning away from the Treasury. They know nothing about it. The great difficulty with the Treasury is that they think they move men about when they move pieces of paper about. It is what I have described over and over again as "whistle-blowing" planning. It has been perfectly obvious on several occasions that there are too many economists advising the Treasury, and now we have the added misfortune of having an economist in the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.
I therefore seriously suggest to the Government that they should set up a production department and put the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the position where he ought to be now under modern planning, that is, with the function of making an annual statement of accounts. Then we should have some realism in the Budget. We should not be pushing out figures when the facts are going in the opposite direction.
I want to come for a short while, because I do not wish to try the patience of the House, to the narrower issue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer astonished me when he said that his Budget was coming to the rescue of the fixed income groups. Well, it has come to the rescue of the fixed income groups over 70 years of age, but not below. The fixed income groups in our modern social services are the victims of this kind of finance. Everybody possessing property gets richer. Property is appreciating all the time, and it is well known that there are large numbers of British citizens living normally out of the appreciated values of their own property. The fiscal measures of the Chancellor of the Exchequer do not touch them at all.
I listened to the Chancellor of the Exchequer with very great admiration. It was one of the cleverest Budget speeches I had ever heard in my life. There was a passage towards the end in which he said that he was now coming to a complicated and technical matter and that if Members wished to they could go to sleep. They did. Whilst they were sleeping he stole £100 million a year from the National Insurance Fund. Of course I know that in the same Budget speech the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had already taken account of it as savings. Of course he had, so that the re-armament of Great Britain is financed out of the contributions that the workers have paid into the Fund in order to protect themselves. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Certainly, that is the meaning of it. It is no good my hon. Friends refusing to face these matters. If we look at the Chancellor's speech we see that the Chancellor himself said that he had already taken account of the contributions into the Insurance Fund as savings. He said so, and he is right. [Interruption.] Do not deny that he is right. I am saying he is right. Do not quarrel with me when I agree with him.
The conclusion is as follows. At a time when there are still large untapped sources of wealth in Great Britain, a Socialist Chancellor of the Exchequer uses the Insurance Fund, contributed for the purpose of maintaining the social services, as his source of revenue, and I say that is not Socialist finance. Go to that source for revenue when no other source remains, but no one can say that


there are no other sources of revenue in Great Britain except the Insurance Fund.
I now come to the National Health Service side of the matter. Let me say to my hon. Friends on these benches: you have been saying in the last fortnight or three weeks that I have been quarrelling about a triviality—spectacles and dentures. You may call it a triviality. I remember the triviality that started an avalanche in 1931. I remember it very well, and perhaps my hon. Friends would not mind me recounting it. There was a trade union group meeting upstairs. I was a member of it and went along. My good friend, "Geordie" Buchanan, did not come along with me because he thought it was hopeless, and he proved to be a better prophet than I was. But I had more credulity in those days than I have got now. So I went along, and the first subject was an attack on the seasonal workers. That was the first order. I opposed it bitterly, and when I came out of the room my good old friend George Lansbury attacked me for attacking the order. I said, "George, you do not realise, this is the beginning of the end. Once you start this there is no logical stopping point."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in this year's Budget proposes to reduce the Health expenditure by £13 million—only £13 million out of £4,000 million. [HON. MEMBERS: "£400 million."] No, £4,000 million. He has taken £13 million out of the Budget total of £4,000 million. If he finds it necessary to mutilate, or begin to mutilate, the Health Services for £13 million out of £4,000 million, what will he do next year? Or are you next year going to take your stand on the upper denture? The lower half apparently does not matter, but the top half is sacrosanct. Is that right? If my hon. Friends are asked questions at meetings about what they will do next year, what will they say?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting a financial ceiling on the Health Service. With rising prices the Health Service is squeezed between that artificial figure and rising prices. What is to be squeezed out next year? Is it the upper half? When that has been squeezed out and the same principle holds good, what do you squeeze out the year after? Prescriptions? Hospital charges? Where do you stop? I have been accused of

having agreed to a charge on prescriptions. That shows the danger of compromise. Because if it is pleaded against me that I agreed to the modification of the Health Service, then what will be pleaded against my right hon. Friends next year, and indeed what answer will they have if the vandals opposite come in? What answer? The Health Service will be like Lavinia—all the limbs cut off and eventually her tongue cut out, too.
I should like to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends, where are they going? [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are you going?"] Where am I going? I am where I always was. Those who live their lives in mountainous and rugged countries are always afraid of avalanches, and they know that avalanches start with the movement of a very small stone. First, the stone starts on a ridge between two valleys—one valley desolate and the other valley populous. The pebble starts, but nobody bothers about the pebble until it gains way, and soon the whole valley is overwhelmed. That is how the avalanche starts, that is the logic of the present situation, and that is the logic my right hon. and hon. Friends cannot escape. Why, therefore, has it been done in this way?
After all, the National Health Service was something of which we were all very proud, and even the Opposition were beginning to be proud of it. It only had to last a few more years to become a part of our traditions, and then the traditionalists would have claimed the credit for all of it. Why should we throw it away? In the Chancellor's Speech there was not one word of commendation for the Health Service—not one word. What is responsible for that?
Why has the cut been made? He cannot say, with an overall surplus of over £220 million and a conventional surplus of £39 million, that he had to have the £13 million. That is the arithmetic of Bedlam. He cannot say that his arithmetic is so precise that he must have the £13 million, when last year the Treasury were £247 million out. Why? Has the A.M.A. succeeded in doing what the B.M.A. failed to do? What is the cause of it? Why has it been done?
I have also been accused—and I think I am entitled to answer it—that I had already agreed to a certain charge. I


speak to my right hon. Friends very frankly here. It seems to me sometimes that it is so difficult to make them see what lies ahead that you have to take them along by the hand and show them. The prescription charge I knew would never be made, because it was impracticable. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, it was never made.
I will tell my hon. Friends something else, too. There was another policy—there was a proposed reduction of 25,000 on the housing programme, was there not? It was never made. It was necessary for me at that time to use what everybody always said were bad tactics upon my part—I had to manœuvre, and I did manœuvre and saved the 25,000 houses and the prescription charge. I say, therefore, to my right hon. and hon. Friends, there is no justification for taking this line at all. There is no justification in the arithmetic, there is less justification in the economics, and I beg my right hon. and hon. Friends to change their minds about it.
I say this, in conclusion. There is only one hope for mankind—and that is democratic Socialism. There is only one party in Great Britain which can do it—and that is the Labour Party. But I ask them carefully to consider how far they are polluting the stream. We have gone a long way—a very long way—against great difficulties. Do not let us change direction now. Let us make it clear, quite clear, to the rest of the world that we stand where we stood, that we are not going to allow ourselves to be diverted from our path by the exigencies of the immediate situation. We shall do what is necessary to defend ourselves—defend ourselves by arms, and not only with arms but with the spiritual resources of our people.

Sir Waldron Smithers: On a point of order. May ask whether it would be the duty of the Government now to announce the date of a General Election?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend sections twenty-six and twenty-seven of the Fire Services Act, 1947, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the sums payable under any enactment out of moneys so provided which is attributable to pro visions of the said Act of the present Session amending those sections—

(i) in respect of employment which is treated for the purposes of the Firemen's Pension Scheme as if it were employment as a member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of the said Act of 1947; or
(ii) in respect of the exclusion of statutory pension schemes other than the Firemen's Pension Scheme in relation to employment as, or treated as aforesaid as employment as, a member of a fire brigade maintained in pursuance of that Act;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums required by the said Act of the present Session to be so paid.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FIRE SERVICES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(AMENDMENT OF S. 27.)

4.9 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas): I beg to move, in page 2, line 27, to leave out "one month," and to insert "three months."
On the Second Reading, the hon. and learned Member for York (Mr. Hylton-Foster) asked me to consider whether one month's notice was long enough. In fact, the period would have been somewhat longer than a month and I believe we could have left the matter to the union and the fire authorities to see that everything was brought to the attention of the firemen concerned. To make it doubly sure, however, I have decided to accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument so that the notice will be of three months instead of one month.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: Can the hon. Gentleman say anything about the other matters which have been raised?

Mr. de Freitas: I take it the hon. Gentleman is referring to the point about the affirmative Resolution and the waiver of contributions. On the point of the affirmative Resolution, I entirely agree that if we were considering fresh provisions in dealing with pensions, it would be worth while considering the matter, but I submit——

The Chairman: Order. I think we can best deal with this point on the Motion that the Clause stand part.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. de Freitas: As I was saying, I submit that the slight Amendment which is called for here, would not justify any such change in the procedure. In any case—and this is an important point, and I hope that the hon. Member will consider it—there is very little chance of any objectionable provision getting past Parliament unnoticed because the Central Fire Advisory Council, on which the fire authorities as well as the unions are represented, have under the Act to be consulted.
As to the arrears of contributions, this concerns payments made under the Local Government Act, 1937, so I consulted my right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning, and we came to the conclusion that it would be impossible to waive those provisions. Perhaps I should point out these things. Most of the men and women affected have, in fact, paid these contributions. It would be difficult for the very few who have not to be excused. Second, it would be a grave injustice if these men and women had to pay all the contributions in one lump sum; but arrangements can be made to have them paid in instalments.
Third, because this has all arisen from a mistake in the law and not from any mistake of these men and women in the fire services, they will be allowed to pay at a lower rate than that normally payable under the Local Government Superannuation Acts to enable a period of "non-contributory" service to be counted as "contributory" service. Lastly, of course the fact is that if one of these men or women elects not to pay he or she will not lose the rights accruing from the service he or she has done; he or she will

get half time pension for each period served.

Mr. R. V. Grimston: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's remarks, and as he has gone into the points we raised, it seems to me he has met them.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 3 and 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

RAILWAY FREIGHT CHARGES (INCREASES)

4.14 p.m.

Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 6th April, 1951, entitled the Railways (Additional Charges) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951, (S.I., 1951, No. 601), a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be annulled.
Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that this and the two following Prayers be considered together?
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 6th April, 1951, entitled the Harbours, Docks and Piers (Additional Charges) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 602), a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be annulled.
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 6th April, 1951, entitled the Canals (Additional Charges) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 603), a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be annulled.
The Regulations, as you know, provide for provisional charges on the railways, on the canals, and in the docks and harbours, and I think it would be for general convenience if they were all discussed together.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I entirely agree. I think it would be much more convenient to take all three together.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am much obliged.
I do invite the House to approach this Motion with the responsibility appropriate to the grim problem of the ever-mounting spiral of the cost of living which


faces our people. It is not enough to give way to the very human tendency to cushion all those of the closest political connection of importance to ourselves and to pass to the consumer the burden. That is not a solution but an aggravation, because the consumer includes, first, other industries whose consequently increased prices will be passed on in turn, and, ultimately, those who are least able to bear the higher prices, like pensioners and those with fixed incomes and of the lowest income groups.
No one in the House of any party wishes to be a party to a conspiracy of unbelieving optimism, and, therefore, we feel most strongly that when we get the chance—even if it is only a chance—of halting the spiral of inflation, we must take it, and that is why we are asking that these further increases in transport charges should not be passed by the House without an inquiry into the possibilities of increased efficiency and economy.
I ask the House to consider three points. First, the objections previously made to an inquiry; and second, matters which, I believe, merit an inquiry at this time; and third, the alternatives to having an inquiry. On the first of these points, the excuses which were made, when I suggested an inquiry last year, in my view simply underline the need for it. The mounting deficit on the railways is now too serious for palliatives. Before the increase of 15th May, 1950, the British Transport Commission were losing at the rate of about £500,000 a week. Less than a year later, when we are discussing this matter today, they are running at about the same rate of loss after getting the increase in charges which we gave them last year. The rate of loss today is about £460,000 a week. One asks, Is this to go on simply ad lib? Last year, the Minister of Transport said:
Parliament is tonight faced with three alternatives. It can approve these charges, which will hold the position until the charges scheme comes into operation so that, for the first time in the first half of this century, we shall be getting a scheme which will solve the problem of road and rail transport."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1950; Vol. 475, c. 528.]
"Hold the position until the charges scheme comes into operation." That rose-coloured vision has now disappeared with the snows of yesteryear. It is impossible to say, "Let us wait and

see the results of the new charging system." That is beaten on the time factor alone. A year ago I quoted what Sir Bruce Thomas, Chairman of the Transport Tribunal, had said—that it was optimism to think that the charges scheme would become operative in 1952. Now we learn that, although it will be introduced this year, it will not become operative before 1954. We cannot wait and see for another three years, with these increases under Section 82 hovering like a vulture over the freight market for all that time. That is the position we have got to face.
The right hon. Gentleman devoted a great portion of his speech to the increases in the cost of materials. Of course, they exist, but they are not the whole story. Road transport has been much more successful in meeting rising prices and keeping down these overheads. The other point which we must face—and I shall be most interested to hear the comments of hon. Gentlemen opposite upon it, because I know of their experience of the railways and how deeply they feel on this point—is that the railways should not be exempt from the general increases in productivity that have occurred since the war, simply because they are a service and not a producing industry. I cannot see the answer to it myself.
I should now like to deal with one other aspect, which is quite different. It is not enough to say, as the right hon. Gentleman said last year, that there are experts in the Railway Executive and, therefore, we do not need others to inquire. I am sure no one would think that I am making any personal attack on the members of the Railway Executive, but it is only human nature, when boss of one's own show, to take a rosy view, and the shortcomings are not seen the same, as they are by someone who comes from outside. I do not want any misunderstanding about this. My idea for an inquiry is a body which could hold a quick inquiry and have at least one member who has great experience as a railway man. The House will agree that it is much better not to mention names, but names come to our minds. There could also be somebody who is interested in industry or commerce, and sees it from the consumer's point of view.
The Guillebaud Inquiry, to which I shall return, shows how information not


known before can come to light, and we have also seen that the Transport Tribunal is subject to severe limitations. I am not going to go into detail of the assumptions which they made, but, after making those assumptions, they said:
Unless, indeed, substantial economies can be effected the financial position of the Commission on figures now available will not be stabilised, even if the increases under discussion are brought into operation.
That is in the message that the right hon. Gentleman read to the House. I do not mind from what angle it is approached, the position is such that it is necessary that there should be a further inquiry.
Having dealt with those objections, I should now like to deal with the matters which, I say, merit an inquiry. It is right to take the answers which the Chairman of the Railway Executive made to the complaint of the Federation of British Industries. The House will remember that the F.B.I. complained of excessive staffing, duplication of management, and the retention of superfluous and uneconomic facilities. The explanation which the Chairman of the Railway Executive gave, by itself shows the need today for an inquiry. The explanation of the first matter—and I quote his words—was:
We are doing more business now than before the war with less staff after allowing for changed working conditions.
For what is he allowing? I ask the House, and especially those hon. Gentlemen opposite who are very familiar with the railway services, to look at the conditions and compare 1937 with 1949. With regard to work, the overall size and length of track and the amount of rolling stock engaged has not altered substantially. Engine miles in 1937 were 597 million and in 1949, 550 million. Passenger journeys have gone down from 1,294 million in 1937 to 992 million in 1949, and freight tonnage from 297 million to 280 million. I do not want to make any false point in taking 1937, but in 1938 the figure was lower. I remind hon. Members of that because I know that in these arguments we try to put our facts fairly and to draw the right conclusions from them.
The men employed have gone up from 550,000 in 1937 to 625,000 in 1949 although there has been a reduction in the succeeding year. I am taking these

figures as a comparison, and most significantly I ask hon. Members to note that per hundred engine hours the number of men employed in 1937 on the freight side was 232 and in 1949 it was 265; those in the passenger service being 363 and 474 respectively. It was not as if there had been any fall in technical operating efficiency. If there had been, the right hon. Gentleman has never said there was. He has pointed to the difficulty of equipment and of modernisation, which was perfectly proper, but allowing for that, passenger miles per engine hour increased by 17½ per cent. and in freight by 30 per cent.
The undeniable result of that is that the ability of the railways to handle more traffic with the same physical apparatus increased, but the numbers of men employed to man that apparatus over a 24-hour day had also to be increased so that the output per man-day has not really improved. If the Chairman of the Railway Executive is satisfied with that position, then that is an overwhelming reason for an inquiry, because there ought to be an inquiry into productivity. That is my first point.
Secondly, I want to deal with management. Again I quote the Chairman because I want to deal with his answers. I think that is a fair way of doing it. The Chairman said:
Management of the railways is in the hands of the Railway Executive decentralised in six regions.
What I have always complained about, as the House is only too well aware, and I apologise for repeating it as part of the argument, is that the Commission is first of all responsible for policy decisions which could be taken by the Railway Executive, which the Executive would make for itself; and, secondly, that the Executive passes orders of detailed management to the regions which ought to be the responsibility of the six regional divisions.
I think that some hon. Gentlemen opposite have thought that this is a sort of King Charles' head of mine and is attributable to my views. May I convince them that it is not, and remind them of what was said by "The Economist" of 10th March, which is much stronger than anything that I


have ever said in this House? "The Economist" stated:
The Executive has allowed the intended scope of its functional organisation to be exceeded. Its purpose was to promote rapid standardisation, but the Executive headquarters is going further and interfering in day-to-day administration. Instructions from the Executive are accompanied by requests for detailed reports and statistics to a degree that is seriously interfering with practical work and inflating local staffs. The blame is commonly put on the subordinate officials at headquarters, whose mediocre quality is attributed to the Executive's unwillingness to pay salaries sufficient to attract the right men from the provinces. Whatever the reason, all the symptoms of bureaucracy are rapidly developing. Local officials inevitably feel that they are not being trusted.
I have never gone as far as that in my complaints about over-centralisation.

Mr. Collick: I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that what he has quoted from "The Economist" is comment, without a shred of evidence to support it.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the article, I think that he will see that it is informed comment. I say that it goes beyond anything that I have said, but it is on the lines of an article, which I quoted some time ago, in the "Railway Review," which was hotly disputed, I agree, but it put a point of view which was considered worthy of insertion in a responsible trade union paper. Therefore, I say that it is an additional reason for the urging of decentralisation, which I have so often done in this House, but which I am not going to repeat today. The third point is with regard to the question of unnecessary facilities. Again, I am going to take it very shortly. I say that the total saving which the Railway Executive have achieved—£900,000 a year on travel lines and stations—is not enough, and that question requires consideration both from the point of view of closing them entirely or using some for freight only. I have dealt with three points.
I now come, as hon. Gentlemen opposite would expect me to come, to the question of the findings of the Guillebaud Report. Again, I want hon. Gentlemen opposite to appreciate the angle from which I am considering this matter. The Government have swept aside the results of the Guillebaud Court of Inquiry, and therefore we are entitled to know in this

House with which of the findings of that Court of Inquiry the Government disagree. It is not only a question of their disagreeing with them but of disagreeing so absolutely and completely that they do not consider it even worth while having a further investigation into the matters into which the Court of Inquiry reported. That is the only position which the Government can take up, and therefore we must ask for a very careful discussion of this aspect of the case.
I am sure that most hon. Members will remember the position. I want to recall, for a moment, a point in the recent negotiations on which the Guillebaud Court of Inquiry sat. On 7th November last year, the date of the meeting of the Railway Staff National Council, the Railway Executive offered £6½ million on the wage claim, conditional on changes in working duties to produce economies under four heads: the abolition of knockers up; the abolition of vanguards in the London area; the extension of lodging terms; and the working of reasonable overtime to complete a tour of duty. These economies were expected to produce about £2 million. I am not, for the moment, going into the trade union negotiating history on these terms because hon. Gentlemen opposite know them far better than I do, but I want hon. Members to know that I have them in mind and have considered them.
I think that I am entitled to make this point, which is a debating point, that hitherto the right hon. Gentleman has been saying in practically all these debates that the Railway Executive are entirely right; but here, of course, we come to the position that the Railway Executive offered these terms. They were then referred to the Court of Inquiry under Mr. Guillebaud. With local modification, that Court of Inquiry upheld the Railway Executive's offer. This is the first point on which we must have an explanation, as I think everyone must agree. The Court said that they regarded it as:
the maximum amount which it is within the capacity of British Railways to pay without imposing intolerable financial burdens upon them.
That is what the Court of Inquiry said. Is that wrong? We want to hear from the right hon. Gentleman. If, as we must take it he disagrees entirely with that statement, because the recommendations


of the Guillebaud Committee have been swept aside, why is it wrong; where is it wrong?
On the second point, they said that there was "an overwhelming case" for the adoption of the conditions of working; and they went on to say that they did not believe the Railway Executive could have assumed the responsibility for putting forward its own proposals for wage and salary increases unless it had been able to envisage ways and means whereby the additional costs could be met either in whole or in part. That is what they thought. Are they wrong in thinking that? If there is any doubt about it at all, then there ought to be an inquiry so that we may know what is the true position.
The Guillebaud Committee said that a rise in passenger fares was considered and rejected in view of the declining trend of passenger receipts. These Regulations do not deal with passengers, and therefore I do not intend to pursue that matter. But they went on to say—and again I ask hon. Gentlemen to face up to their words:
A further rise in freight charges would seem to us very undesirable both because of (a) the adverse effect in regard to costs and prices which it could have on industry in general"—
That is a point which I have already mentioned and which all of us have in mind—
and (b) because it would tend to drive more traffic away from the railways.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that, and, if so, why?

Mr. David Jones: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is making a fair point, but he ought to relate it to the fact that these conditions applied and the Z grades in the railway service got 92s. a week.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: I am coming to that point. This was made on the offer which was roughly half way. I gave the figure. It was £6½ million. Of course, the ultimate figure was £12 million. It was made with that offer, which would have meant a certain increase for the lower grades, and it was made after the 3s. increase of a few months before. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate the point, when an independent committee says that a rise in freight charges would not only have a general adverse effect but would drive more traffic from the railways. I want to know whether

the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the committee, and, if he disagrees, why?
The Government are in this difficulty. When the findings were announced the railway unions rejected them outright. I do not want to say anything unfair. It is quite true that eventually they agreed to examine economies, but they were completely uncommitted as to what they would accept, which is the position today. The difficulty we are in is that we have on the one side the Railway Executive and the Court of Inquiry and on the other the railway trade unions. The Railway Executive is in the dilemma of being impaled on one or other of those two horns. What the Railway Executive said is at any rate right to some extent, or else joint consultation between the Railway Executive and the unions on these problems must have been bad, which is my fifth point.
Hon. Members will appreciate that when the Railway Executive is supported by an independent inquiry and its suggestions are absolutely repudiated by three responsible unions, this in itself damns the joint consultation which must have preceded that position. That also must be a matter for inquiry. Somehow or other the difficulties of the men and the difficulties of the employers have not succeeded in being brought to each other's attention. I am very anxious to hear what Members opposite have to say on this point. I believe that consultation ought to take place irrespective of wage bargaining, and that should apply to the whole field of industry. It should not be geared to wage bargaining. There is a specially high duty on nationalised industries to see to that.

Mr. Collick: It does apply.

Mr. Harrison: Is it not a fact that joint consultation is separated from negotiating machinery but that for convenience the personnel is the same?

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: The result was so bad in this case that it cannot be functioning properly. Again, in the words of "The Economist," we find this:
How unsuccessful the procedure of joint consultation has been is shown by the policy which some C.R.O.s have been forced to use as a makeshift in holding large meetings of employees and talking to them over the heads of their immediate superiors.


Surely one of the problems of joint consultation is whether it is beyond the Railway Executive, as employers, to show that the men would benefit by the greater efficiency which these changes would bring, and to demonstrate the connection between wages and conditions which gives the most effective working.
Those are my five points—productivity, management, branch lines as an example of unnecessary facilities, the findings of the Court of Inquiry and joint consultation. I ask Members opposite to consider the alternatives. If we are not to have this inquiry, the Government must face the implications of their own actions. They must consider the implication of sweeping aside the recommendations of the Court of Inquiry and substituting their own figure of £12 million, without conditions, for the Court of Inquiry figure.
The implications are that the State has been brought in as a direct party to wage negotiations and will decide their necessity to the political needs of the Government in power. That is a very serious position. Practically all hon. Members present took part in the debates on the transport nationalisation measure, and they will remember the theory of the independence of the public boards. That has been completely exploded. It has gone with the wind, unless the Government are prepared to take some action to put right what they have done on the matter. We must also reconcile ourselves to the position that the chances of the railways "breaking even," has also gone with the wind.
That is the position, and we say that there should be an inquiry. I am not going to prejudge what the result will be. I know the difficulties of Members opposite as to redundancy. That is a frightfully difficult matter. The London van group unofficial strike at King's Cross shows that the feeling is there. I recognise the feeling, but it would strengthen us if we had some external body which could give us the advantage of its views on productivity, management and so on. I cannot help feeling, and I say this with great diffidence to Members opposite, that this is especially important in the case of the railways, where we have dispersed working, unlike a factory where everything is on the spot. The alternative is

that the independent public corporation goes.
But we have to consider the present situation, and the right hon. Gentleman will say that I must come back to that. Well, I come back to it, and I say that the present method of employing interim increases in charges to keep the railways going is not even an interim answer. The 10 per cent. increase will give the Commission £14 million more this year. It will reduce the over-all deficit from £65 million to £51 million, and I submit that there is very little comfort in that. I say that if there is nationalisation, with the implication of a State monopoly, there is no alternative for the consumer, and there must be some external efficiency audit.
I urge hon. Members who approach the subject of nationalisation with a disposition in its favour—as I suppose I approach it with a disposition against it—to take the T.U.C. view, which is probably accepted by everyone now, that public ownership should not be accepted for the sake of public ownership, but that it should be accepted only if it is thought to be the best method of doing the job. On that basis, where there is public ownership without the check of competition, there must be something in the nature of an efficiency audit, and we must agree—if I might slightly change some well-known words—that whatever form we have, what this country cannot afford is either public or private unenterprise. That the country cannot afford, and it is because I want to see that it does not exist, that I have moved this Motion.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) has achieved well deserved eminence in the legal profession by his careful selection of evidence and the submission of it as suited to the case he is advocating, and he has excelled himself in that respect this afternoon. I happened to have been a member, as an assessor, of the Guillebaud Court of Inquiry, and with the quotations submitted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman I can scarcely quarrel. But many of the questions he postulated are answered in the Report of Mr. Guillebaud and his colleagues. This afternoon the right hon. and learned Gentleman has merely postulated a review of the questions and omitted the replies.
First, let me deal with what I would describe as the domestic side of the matter. I gather that there is some complaint about manpower. There has been a great deal of false information circulated throughout the country on that point, and it will interest the House to know that during the last two and a half years the staff of British Railways has been reduced by no fewer than 34,000.
A further complaint is in respect of over-centralisation, but the fact is that there is more decentralisation today than ever before. The British Transport Commission meet once a week and the members of the Railway Executive meet once a week. The task of the executive is to implement the policy laid down by the Commission, and to achieve that the Executive have regular meetings of the regional officers throughout the country. At those meetings they are not only advised what action they should take, but they are invited to submit their own proposals, and they have a far greater amount of local autonomy today than they did under private ownership. If men who have had experience of the work could give evidence in the House today they would very readily confirm what I say.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also said that the Guillebaud Court of Inquiry had not been given the necessary attention, but he submitted no evidence in support of that argument. By a coincidence, it so happens that Mr. Guillebaud presided over two inquiries, the first in 1947 and then over the most recent one. He was faced with a very great difficulty. When inquiring into the rates of wages and salaries of railwaymen he could not avoid the conclusion that something of a substantial character should be done, but owing to their limited terms of reference they were only allowed to make a recommendation in harmony with the financial condition of the industry. That is where the railway unions and the Court of Inquiry joined issue.
The Chairman of the Court of Inquiry and the Chairman of the Railway Executive were given an impossible task in being entrusted with the responsibility of assessing the merits or demerits of increases in wages and salaries if they had to confine themselves to the financial

position of the railway industry in the present circumstances. The railwaymen recognise that if we are to be dependent upon the measure of profit in the industry now there is no hope for any improvement in our conditions of service, but we submit that that ought not to be a condition under which the Court of Inquiry should labour.
Let us consider the task given to the Court. They were asked to examine an application and indicate what their views were and to what extent the application could be met. When the evidence was submitted by the leaders of the three railway unions it was obvious that the members of the Court of Inquiry were overwhelmed, and in making an award they realised that they had to add to the deficit. Section 76 of the Transport Act lays down that:
The Commission shall from time to time prepare, and submit to the Transport Tribunal
charges schemes to cover all services, and no schemes were to be available within two years from the passing of the Act. However, it proved such a formidable task that on 26th July, 1949, the Minister of Transport had to allow a longer period, namely, four years from the passing of the Act, and that period will expire on 5th August, 1951. Until that scheme has been approved by the Minister and put into operation there is very little likelihood of more profit being made.
What is the stumbling block? The railways have to find £36 million in 1950 as their share of the central charges of the Transport Commission, and £30 million out of the £36 million has to be found to pay stockholders and the former owners of railway wagons. The railway unions, and indeed all the railway employees, say that that amount can be met and must be met, but that in present circumstances it is giving the Railway Executive an impossible task in asking them to raise that money without help from elsewhere. What are their difficulties? I am now taking the most recent figures. Fuel oil for buses has gone up 140 per cent.; coal, 200 pet cent.; tyres, 160 per cent.; steel rails, 115 per cent.; timber sleepers, 315 per cent.; copper plates, 215 per cent.; brass bars, 420 per cent., and clothing, 320 per cent.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Can the hon. Gentleman say on which date he is basing these comparisons?

Mr. Morris: On 1939. The cost of clothing in 1938 was £597,000. In 1949, it was £1,700,000, having gone up 320 per cent. The cost of railway locomotives increased by 120 per cent. I would repeat the question that I have put on several occasions: Who could run a business, pay these higher charges, and make a profit, by only increasing his own costs by about 55 per cent. at the very maximum? In fact, if the Prayers today are rejected, the charges, under the present proposals, will amount to an increase of only about 75 per cent. in the cost of travel above that of pre-war days in the London area, and about 90 per cent. outside London.
That is the task of the Railway Executive. It is manifestly unfair to charge them with failing in their duty. If they are guilty of it, they are only repeating what happened before. I would like to remind the House that, with the exception of the Great Western Railway, every railway company before the war was taken off the trustee list. The G.W.R. directors only paid about one half of 1 per cent. interest. The financial history of the railways reflects no credit at all upon the private running of them, and the steps taken by the Railway Executive during the past three years indicates that they are trying to grapple with the problem of making the Transport Commission's work pay year by year.
Reference was made to joint consultation, which is now being practised for the first time. The unions had tried to get consultation adopted, but it is only since nationalisation that they have been encouraged. Nevertheless, they face on the other side of the table nominees of the previous general managers and railway directors, and they are wondering whether this effort at joint consultation is genuine. The former Chairman of the Railway Executive, Sir Eustace Missenden, and Mr. John Elliot, have made every possible effort to convince the railway unions that they are now earnestly seeking to bring about consultation at all levels with a view to eliminating waste and inefficiency. The Joint Consultative Council, upon which the railway executive committees are represented, meets every quarter, and oftener if that be necessary. Consultation

at a higher level is taking place almost from day to day.
These increased charges will only help the Minister and the Transport Commission; I am bound to repeat that they will not solve the financial problem of the industry. There will have to be other measures. If the House ignores the increased costs that the Railway Executive have to meet and sweeps them aside, we shall have to press from this side of the House for an entire recasting of the financial structure of the railway industry. It is only when that recasting comes about that the railways will be given a fair and proper opportunity. It has been suggested that if we want peace in the industry we shall have to recognise the work performed by the administrative and operative grades on a very much fairer basis. I would emphasise the need for proper and wider consultation and, in view of the enhanced costs of the executive, the need for some special encouragement and help to get them on their feet. In the course of the next three years, if the new scheme comes into operation, the industry might—I will not say "will"—be able to present a better picture.
Let the House be quite fair to this Executive. Let us acknowledge that they are facing an unusually heavy burden. Before they can increase even a single cost they have to go through the machinery of presenting their case before a tribunal. That does not happen with any other industry. If the case should be proved for an increase in rates and charges, this will not solve the problem, and the railway unions will not be happy at all until there has been a new approach and an entirely different effort to reorganise the financial structure of British transport.

5.6 p.m.

Sir Walter Monckton: This is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing the House, and I ask for the indulgence which I know that the House so generously gives on these occasions. I will undertake not to abuse it by detaining the House for long, but there are one or two matters which encourage me to try to make a short contribution to this discussion. The first is that for many years I have been engaged on one side or the other in the various reviews and inquiries into the structure of railway rates, and in the


attempts to raise these rates from time to time. That, I must say, has left me with considerable sympathy with those who say that there are no very easy answers to the problems which confront the Minister of Transport, and indeed the Transport Commission. Let me say how grateful I am to the right hon. Gentleman for his courtesy and kindness in giving me the right of access to the Ministry, and to the officials there, who have helped me enormously in preparing, and curtailing, what I have to say.
The second matter which encourages me to say a few words here today is that I have had recent personal experience at a by-election of the depth of the anxiety which the public feel at the spiral of costs of one sort or another with which we are confronted. They see the cost of coal going up because of the costs of the railways in carrying it. They see the cost of railway charges go up because of the cost of coal which has to be used in the running of the trains. Then again, in the last week, they have seen a further rise in the cost of coal because of the increase in the railway charges that we are now considering. They find that a very disquieting source of anxiety. One has to say to oneself, "If this spiral is to go on without our attempting to do anything about it, are we satisfied that we are doing our task?"
Where does it hurt most? When the right hon. Gentleman, in December, 1949, was introducing a discussion upon the increases which were made on 15th May, 1950, he said that the main weight of those increases would fall upon the heavy industrial products which form the main traffic of the railways. That was no doubt true, and it is equally true of the increase of 10 per cent. which is now proposed. It will fall most heavily on the basic industries on which we rely for re-armament, industrial prosperity and our export trade. It will not touch passenger traffic for reasons which we understand. I gather that it is hoped that the scheme which will deal with that sort of traffic will be introduced and dealt with during the summer of 1951, though I suspect it is a bold man who would prophesy confidently that that scheme will be in operation as early as that.
In the meantime the main burden will certainly rest on the heavy industries and their trade. Indeed, it will always rest

upon them. When their time comes to feel the increase some of the passengers can avoid travelling or can travel more easily by other means. Merchandise in the higher classes above Class 6 can still very often travel by other means of transport, but the minerals and coal traffic in Classes 1 to 6 is traffic which cannot escape travelling on the railways, to which it is tied. I suggest that it is a very grave decision to put burdens in this way upon the heavy traffic at a period in our industrial history like this unless it is proved that it is absolutely inevitable.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris), said that the effect of the increase would be to put a 75 per cent. increase on the pre-war figures.

Mr. P. Morris: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman. I said that it would bring the increase up to 75 per cent., not put on an increase of 75 per cent.

Sir W. Monckton: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. This will bring the figure up to 75 per cent. over the pre-war figure.
I am anxious that the Minister shall correct me if I am wrong, but, as I have apprehended the figure, this will bring it up to 99 per cent. over the pre-war figure. If these percentages become as high as that it is a very different matter and it is a very serious burden that we are putting on these industries. In the old dispensation under the Railways Act, 1921, there was a provision which determined that if an increase was sought in the standard and other charges the railways had to prove as a necessary prerequisite that any deficiency in the revenue was not due to a lack of efficiency or economy in the management, and I suggest that at a moment like this when these increases seem to come with such rapidity and such weight the Minister might well consider that a salutary provision like that might be treated as a condition fulfilment of which is required in these days.
It is interesting to see that the permanent members of the Transport Tribunal in giving their advice on this occasion based themselves on two things. They based themselves on an assurance from the Minister, which was no doubt justified, that the figures which were put forward by the Transport Commission give an accurate picture of the financial


position as it now is with the railways. But they also said that they had been supplied with such information in conjunctions with that disclosed during the extensive inquiry held in January, 1950. There was, of course, no inquiry on this occasion which would have enabled any testing of economies or possibilities of improvements or further inquiry.
Therefore, if we are looking to the Transport Tribunal, we must be driven back to what was called the extensive inquiry held in January, 1950, and of that we have a report. It is interesting—especially interesting to those of us who took part in it—to see the conclusions that were reached on this matter. It was argued that, following on the economies and reductions in staff which had been referred to in the evidence submitted by the Transport Commission, greater economies than the £2 million to £3 million allowed for in working expenses of come £300 million could not be expected.
What did the Transport Tribunal add? They said they felt that the material at their disposal for determining the difference between that submission and that which I made was inadequate. The contention which had been made on the other side was that a good deal could have been done to attempt to see whether further economies and opportunities of greater efficiency could be found. The Tribunal said that they found that their material was inadequate to enable them to determine that, and they went on to say that the estimated economies in 1950 appeared to them to be disappointingly small. That is the degree to which the Transport Tribunal had been able to deal with this matter and satisfy themselves, and therefore us, as to whether, to use the language of the old Act, any deficiency in revenue ought not to be attributed to failure to economise or failures in management.
The evidence which was given on behalf of the Commission in 1950 for that inquiry dealt also with major economies and improvements, and it can be summarised in this way: that that could only be secured by radical changes in working conditions or as a result of fundamental alterations in the technical organisation of transport and that that was not to be obtained until the system was integrated within the meaning of the

1947 Act. That seems to postpone any chance of inquiring into economies and further efficiency to be obtained therefrom until we have the road and rail charges scheme in force. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) pointed out that, whereas when the inquiry was held in 1950 it was anticipated that that would be in 1952, the right hon. Gentleman is now advised by the Transport Tribunal in 1951 that it is not to be anticipated that those charges will be in operation before 1954 at the earliest.
What one asks oneself is: Are we to be asked to sanction these increases, which do not come singly or seldom, for three, four or more years without any inquiry upon the, as it used to be, fundamental matter of whether something can be done by economies and by greater efficiency in management? That was a matter upon which the 1950 Tribunal found itself in possession of inadequate material to determine and a matter in which the Tribunal sitting this year had no further material offered it. All we are suggesting is that there ought to be an inquiry of that sort.
When we come to consider the type of inquiry, my right hon. and learned Friend said that he wanted an expert ad hoc Committee. I submit to the House that there are great advantages in an expert committee over the Transport Tribunal upon this front. Before the Transport Tribunal, it is really impracticable for the users of the railways, who are the objectors, to examine fully the suggestions that might be made for greater economy. They start with very little detailed material and can hope for very little to enable them to break down the figures which come up during the inquiry. They are not equipped, and they would not be permitted, to pursue a kind of roving investigation, necessarily unprepared, and embark on a voyage of discovery, but the ad hoc expert committee would not be under any such difficulties as that. Their task would be precisely what the Transport Tribunal is not really able to do, as is indicated in the 1950 report. They would have to search out and probe for opportunities of economy and greated efficiency, and, as experts, they would call for such documents and figures as they required for that task.
I will give just one concrete example of what I mean. We have heard in this


debate a good deal about the differences between the staff before the war and the staff in 1948 and 1949, as contrasted with the freight tonnage carried in those years. When one is dealing with that sort of matter before the Transport Tribunal, one can only deal with it, as the report itself indicates, in the broadest manner. One can point out that the staff in 1937 was 550,000 and that the freight train traffic then was 298 million tons, whereas in 1948 the staff was up by 100,000 and the freight train traffic was down by 22 million tons. I am anxious to point out that in the ensuing year the figures are better. The staff is up 75,000, not 100,000, and the freight traffic is down not by 22 million tons but by 18 million tons.
Those figures, crudely put, do not suggest more than this: that there is something to inquire into. There are certainly partial explanations, but there remains a wide field in this important subject because the wages and salaries element in the working expenses of a railway company are not less than 60 per cent. Therefore, if there is room for any economy there it ought to be considered, and it cannot practicably be considered before the Transport Tribunal.
The same thing is true—I mention it only by way of illustration—with regard to passenger traffic, which, I realise, is outside the scope of this debate. It is often suggested that there is a degree of unprofitable working of passenger trains. I have had to suggest it and I have had to resist it. I know it is a matter which involves the detailed study of a great deal of material, and if one were to take each branch about which that inquiry arose before the Transport Tribunal, I think they would have very little sympathy with such a method of conducting the matter. Obviously, it is something which could be more easily handled by an expert committee appointed ad hoc.
But even supposing, as a result of appointing this expert committee, one reached the conclusion that there was no direction in which we could look for significant economies, no place where we could hope for really important efficiency improvements, the very holding of the inquiry would do a great deal to restore confidence in the Transport Commission and the Railway Executive. And it may be, may it not, that we ourselves should look, not as people who complacently

accept these increases which come so often upon us—or if not complacently, at any rate with helpless resignation and folded arms—but as people who realise that it is our duty, before allowing any such charges to be increased, to inquire resolutely whether we could not check or arrest those increases?

5.23 p.m.

Mr. Poole: It is about 13 years ago since I faced the House of Commons to make my maiden speech. I have had to wait 13 years before having the honour and the pleasure of paying tribute to another hon. Member of this House who has just gone through the same ordeal, although I must say, with very great respect, that in the case of the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton), there was no semblance of ordeal and that neither did we expect there would be one. It is all the more pleasing to me to pay a tribute to him because I suppose I have said more unkind and uncharitable things about the profession of the hon. and learned Member than about any other profession. Therefore, I should like to assure him that we have listened to his maiden speech with very real pleasure.
On this side of the House we are conscious that a new force has entered our transport debates. The hon. and learned Member brings to this subject not only an enormous reputation in legal circles generally, but a specific knowledge of this subject. Knowledge of his long and wide association with railway rates before the Railway Rates Tribunal, preceded him into this House. The one thing I hold against him is that I have had to interpret in practice some of the rates which he was responsible for asking us to accept.
I hope we shall hear the hon. and learned Gentleman often, particularly in our transport debates, which are on a subject very close to the hearts of many of us. I should like to welcome him formally to what I might call the transport group in this House. It is not limited to one side, for there are Members on both sides who approach this problem with a wide diversity of interest. Indeed, I may ultimately convince the hon. and learned Gentleman to agree with a viewpoint which is solely my own and for which up to the present I have had no supporter. At any rate, we represent a bunch of hon. Members who


really desire to see the best done for this great industry.
I do not want to detain the House long this afternoon, because I have spoken many times on this subject. Mr. Speaker, who obviously has heard me often and knows the line I am tempted to take, has already told me that C licences would be out of the question. I have heard a number of my colleagues, during recent debates, confessing that they were family men, principally because they thought they could claim to speak with some authority on rising prices. Although I do so somewhat belatedly, it is time that I confessed myself as a family man. As fathers we may not have played a prominent part in bringing up our families, for that was the responsibility mainly of our wives, but we have all faced the experience of a sick child and have been greatly concerned about its chances of recovery.
The transport industry appears to me to be very much in that position. It is a child for whom I have a great affection, having spent many years of my life in its service, and there is no doubt about it, that it is a very sick child today. Looking at this problem in that light, I have turned over in my brain all the things which I hoped might be done to restore this sick child to full health and vigour, able again to play its proper part. It does not always follow that because a child is sick it needs feeding. Sometimes a good purgative gives a better cure, and I am not sure that it would not be better for the transport industry to have a little purging rather than to feed it with another 10 per cent. freight increase.
The recent wages award was fully justified and much overdue. In this situation there is nothing else to be done immediately than to make this increase in freight charges. However, I deeply deplore the necessity for it, a necessity which need never have come upon us if greater wisdom had been shown in the organisation of the industry. It is no new thing for the railway industry to be in trouble. It was in trouble for over 25 years. It has been in trouble since I entered it in 1918. I hasten to assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that I do not think my association with the industry brought any of the present trouble upon it.
As I say, for over 25 years this industry has been in grievous trouble. In 1922, it asked this House to help it by an extension of its powers. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who have spoken for the Conservative Party in the House over a period of years have asked that this industry might be given a chance to put itself in proper shape. There is only one of them left now who speaks with the true railway voice in the House, the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), but we still hear from him echoes of those speeches.
That opportunity, however, has never been forthcoming, and it is really a little gratuitous for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to stand at the Opposition Box and give us this afternoon a set of fine points, every one of which was applicable to the industry when it was in private hands. Every one of the demands he made could, and ought to, have been made and met in the days when the industry was in the hands of the railway companies.
What is the position today, and why is there such difficulty in making the railways a financial success? Any of us who has had any association with an industry knows that the overheads of modern industry are a major factor in determining whether it shall make a profit or a loss. As the production output of an industry increases, however, the increase is not in relation to the increased charge on the overheads which arise. There is no industry in the country in which overhead charges are such a vital factor as in the railway industry.
This is an industry which has to provide its own roads, its own signalling system, its own telephone service, and its own rolling stock; it has a considerable burden of overhead charges continuously upon it. It must be employing its facilities to the maximum of its capacity if it is to show a profit over the year. The trouble has been that for the past 25 years this industry has not been allowed to employ itself to maximum capacity. Its maximum overheads have been continuously present, but the traffic which it ought to have been carrying in its high cost, specially selected vehicles, and the traffic which ought to have been hauled in its heavy trains which have been running only partially loaded, has not been there. Therefore, there has been the


burden of very heavy overheads and there has not been the necessary traffic available to enable the industry to pay its way.
In 1938, when the "Square Deal" campaign of the railways was launched throughout the country, and was even bought on to the Floor of the House, the railways were facing the position that they were having to maintain their heavy overhead charges but there was being denied to them the traffic that was being carried by 513,000 road vehicles. Because of that, the impact of those overheads upon its balance sheet, faced with the loss of that traffic to a competitive form of transport, made the industry unable to pay its way.
Today, there is denied to the railways not merely the traffic carried by 513,000 outside vehicles, but the traffic carried by 850,000 competing vehicles. While the overheads of the railway companies still continue, the traffic that could make them remunerative, that could make the industry pay, is being denied to it by the continued development and growth of the road vehicles.
Of the general organisation of the industry, I say this. I believe that freight transit times are much too slow; the service for freight traffic on the railways is much too poor. Why is this so? It is because of the impossibility of running through services from point to point because of the same limiting factor of the amount of traffic which is offering. It is no use the right hon. and learned Gentleman talking about increased production in relation to increased wages to staff if traffic is not available to be carried. The man who is in the signal box, passing 80 or 100 passenger or freight trains through a day, cannot increase his production because he has had a 7s. 6d. a week rise. He cannot influence any more trains to pass along that route, neither can any other man in the service if the traffic is not offering. That being so, we are suffering in our freight service times—the whole vicious circle is operating—because we do not have the traffic to enable us to operate the through services which would give the better freight timings which the industry needs.
I believe, also, that there is a failure to co-ordinate the fast railway services from major points and selected rail-heads, with connecting road service transport.

That co-ordination, which ought to have been one of the first things laid down by the nationalised undertaking, has been singularly absent. I visualised a scheme of fast freight services, from our major and more important centres and the smaller points, being linked by a quick road service delivering the freight, but that still is not in existence. So we are having an unusual and increasing number of trans-shipments of freight traffic, with consequent bad timing and the loss of traffic to competing services.
The need of the industry is not, as has been the trend over the years, for longer and heavier trains. I believe that the only hope of the industry's survival is for lighter, faster and more freight services. Not until we can offer these things to the public will the industry see its way through. Linking up with the provision of lighter, faster and more frequent services must go the diesel-electric locomotive. I speak as one who has made some comparison of operating costs of the diesel-electric locomotive and I believe that it can play a vital part in putting the industry on its feet.
The industry has many problems. If I had to sum up what I thought was the besetting trouble and the problem which it has to face at present, and which has to be tackled sooner or later, before the industry really is on its feet, I would say it is this: that the railway industry is at present bedevilled by too many who do not know and by an even greater number who do not even care.

5.37 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: We always welcome the contributions of the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole), and I was disappointed on this occasion that his was so short, because I remember other transport debates when he has contributed a great deal of meat to the discussions which has given us an opportunity for digestion afterwards. Today, his contribution, although short, was more valuable, because he seemed to be moving rather to our point of view on this side of the House. Although deprived of his King. Charles's head, he yet gave an indication that the railways seriously needed investigation.
That, so far, has been the burden of the speeches which have been made from


my right hon. and learned Friend onwards, including the notable contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton), whom we on these benches are all delighted to see in the House, for the moment alongside us, but very soon, I expect, in front of us.
I come straight away to the main point raised by the hon. Member for Perry Barr, that British Railways today is a sick child. As a sick child, it is very much in need of a rapid, expert diagnosis. I hope to suggest that instead of a physician, what we need is a surgeon and a substantial operation to boot. This question of the composition of an expert committee of investigation has two aspects. One, which so far has not been mentioned, is the public relations aspect in which the railways at present stand. Before the war, we had a great deal of knowledge about what was taking place on the railways. The railways were in competition, although that competition was limited, and in the process of competition there was generated a good deal of public discussion and understanding of the purposes of the railways, what each line was trying to do, and where each service was going. All that has been closed off and sealed away from the public view at present.
Therefore, to some extent, all the-bodies which have so far charged themselves with an interest in railway affairs are only partially effective. I regret to say that the Railway Executive has all the facts in its possession today, but for the most part suppresses those in which the public are most interested. I have been reading again the second Report of the Transport Commission. I find it a mass of interesting statistics, but one cannot piece a real story together, or understand what it is that the railway chiefs themselves think is wrong with the railways. Perhaps it is natural to suppose that in a Report of that kind they would not reveal themselves to the public gaze.
The Central Transport Consultative Committee, appointed under Section 6 of the Act, which is a body supposed to take some interest in railway activities and to reveal to the public gaze what is going on, only had three meetings last year. It submitted a report and the

report is with the Minister. I have never seen the report and I do not know whether other hon. Members have seen it, or whether it is even available in the Library. We do not know what the Consultative Committee set up by the Minister is doing about the railways.

Mr. Poole: I would urge the noble Lord not to press too strongly for the report of the three meetings of that body. If he does so I think he will find that on each occasion they stress the terrific burden of C licences.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): The noble Lord may proceed, but I do not know whether this comes under the three Regulations we are considering.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think so, because we are discussing the railways in a general way and, as we were discussing the Railway Executive, I thought the analogous body of the Central Transport Consultative Committee was relevant. I am passing from that immediately to say this——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not sure that we are discussing railways in a general way. We are dealing with these three Regulations.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I realise that, and I am going on to try to find reasons for saying that these Regulations ought not to be given effect to pending the establishment of an inquiry. In these circumstances, Parliament itself is no effective inquiry. Suggestions for a joint Select Committee of both Houses to look into the nationalised industries and probe into what is going on in the railways have been rejected and we are down to these periodic debates in the House of Commons and the information made available to us is meagre in the extreme.
We are not even getting complaints from the travelling public in great numbers. That is not because there is not a great deal wrong. We all know there is. We all know there is a slowing down in the delivery of goods and a high handedness in administrative action, that the services are deteriorating in quality, that there is a great deal of dirty rolling stock and unkempt furniture and the like. We have also had complaints, not from constituents but from the railway servants


themselves, of poor pay, redundancy in mainline stations and elsewhere, administrative congestion at the top and lack of opportunity which some of the careerists in the railway service experience in their desire to get promoted.
But all this is not coming to the House and the reason is that our constituents and others know that the Minister has persistently refused to answer Questions. There is not a body which effectively can probe into this great octopus of the railway system so that when people make complaints to us they may know that they are effective.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: The noble Lord has made a number of charges about inferior service, dirty conditions of the railways and a whole lot of things which he regards as being something like innovations and, I suppose, as associated with nationalisation, but that is contrary to the experience of most of my hon. Friends and myself. Could he substantiate his statement with some evidence?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I am not making out a considerable argument on this, but am passing on to the main part of what I want to say. I merely point to the lack of knowledge of railway operations and the ineffectiveness of this House in that regard. Having seen the lack of organisations to probe effectively into it, we need something new, which is the inquiry for which my hon. Friends have been asking for over a year. Our plea has been greatly reinforced by the contribution of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West. We need an expert team of surgeons to open up this great encrusted body of the British railway system and let the students of public administration see what is going on inside. If after that this expert team of surgeons would do a little work in straightening up the vitals of this beast it would be a good thing.
Last year when the industry was losing half a million pounds a week, the Minister said that the 16⅔ per cent. increase in freight charges was designed to prevent losses accumulating. He said:
it is for the purpose of safeguarding the situation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th May, 1950; Vol. 475, c. 519.]
It may be that at that time in his view the deficit was at an end, or would remain what it was, and would not accumulate.

But now, a year afterwards, we find that £400,000 a week is being lost, or nearly as much again. The 16⅔ per cent. is found not sufficient and the Minister comes along and says he will provide for this extra 10 per cent. on freight charges, a new increase which will bring the Commission's running deficit to about £2.4 million a year. Can anyone have any confidence at all that finality has been reached in this after the experience of last year? My right hon. and learned Friend showed what the effect of these rising charges had been on a parallel nationalised industry, coal. It results in the price of coal going up by 1s. 9d. a ton, which will react on the railways. Possibly as a result of the increase the price of steel will go up, which in turn will react on the railways and put up their costs.
What we are beginning to see is these great nationalised industries and services acting and re-acting against each other as agents of inflation, building up one after the other a great edifice of rising prices and rising costs. Someone has got to step in and stop the rot. We have to take one nationalised industry—I do not care whether it is railways or coal—condition it and streamline it, anchor it to the ground and prevent it from carrying on this enormous inflationary process.
I am glad to say that we have a general principle in the operation of the Transport Commission and of the Railway Executive. It is laid down in the Act that, taking one year with another, there should be neither profit nor loss. We are all agreed about that, except those who favour an outside subsidy on a large scale, which I do not believe commands general assent even in the party opposite. I believe that there is a case for a small subsidy for lines which can be exactly defined as strategic lines but no case for a general subsidy. I hope the principle of no profit and no loss will work out, as I said about a year ago, not only at Commission level, but right down to the Executives and to the lowest ranges of administration.
Having got that principle we must make up our minds between two alternative administrative methods. The first is the one which the Government, the Ministry and Commission have been pursuing for the last five years and which I think even the hon. Member for Perry Barr now


begins to realise is leading us to disaster. That is to fix the manpower, fix the capital programme, fix the quality of the service and met the cost by higher paper rates irrespective of where those rates fall, and whether the customer will take the service at the price offered. That is what is happening now.
There is no guarantee whatever that people will pay these paper rates which are now being laid down, that they will not divert more and more services away from the railways, either to the canals or coastwise ships or road transport services. They will probably do so. We have reached the point where people are beginning to find the railways extremely unattractive at the prices offered, and they are not going to continue to use them.

Mr. Harrison: When speaking of alternative forms of transport the noble Lord mentioned coastwise shipping. Is he aware that since 1938 the freight rates for coastwise shipping have risen by 220 per cent., and that, therefore, there is a substantial factor in respect of operation costs to be considered there?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I dare say that they have been raised, and if it is the policy of the Government to raise the rates of all the competing services so that the traffic, if any, has to go by rail we can fully understand the reason for that policy.
The other and completely opposite administrative method is to go out for the maximum revenue available, and which is payable, and cut costs in order to strike the balance of no profit and no loss. That is the alternative tack which I believe the Transport Commission will now be obliged to follow. In that connection it is fantastic to suppose that we can wait for years for the production of the railway charges scheme. The situation is so grave, the need for gaining fresh revenue day by day and week by week is so urgent, that we cannot possibly look to this old-fashioned rigmarole, arising out of decades of past legislation when the railways were a monopoly or a semi-monopoly, to produce the result.
The right hon. Gentleman, or this expert body for which we are asking, must break in and blow the thing sky high, and bring to this House a short Bill releasing the railways from their

obligations to go through this extraordinarily lengthy process, and giving them the sort of opportunity which great commercial firms have, in competition with each other, to go out and look for custom at economic prices. I agree with one hon. Member who said that the railways were bound and tied by the past. So they are. They must be released from their obligation and allowed to go out and get attractive business at the rates which they think people can pay. So much for that aspect.
I turn to the other side of the picture—economies. There is no doubt that the railways can and should make immense economies both in manpower and in general expenditure. Some years ago the Minister of Local Government and Planning said that when the railways were nationalised the Labour Party had taken over a poor bag of physical assets. There is no doubt that they were poor and were getting poorer. That was probably as much due to the external competition which they were experiencing from 20th century transport processes, which no one in their senses wants to suppress, as to anything else. But they were poor also because, as the hon. Member for Perry Barr said, or implied, they had too many assets in the bag. What I mean by that is that those assets were costing too much to keep up—that they were not fully exploited.
When one considers the railway system as a whole, and views in the mind's eye any railway scene one can recollect, it is extraordinary to note how elaborate and costly the whole thing is compared with what one sees when one goes overseas. It was all very well and quite right for a great Victorian monopoly, when the roads had not been fully developed and the aeroplane was unthought of, to have this tremendously costly structure. It could be maintained because nobody had any opportunity of using any alternative service. But Queen Victoria is now dead, we have had two immensely costly wars, and this country is not now in the condition in which it was in the heyday of the last century.
The railways themselves are no longer a monopoly. They have to compete with road and air; travelling custom is divided between the various services. There is no question that the railways need a tremendous process of stream lining. I


find it extraordinary that even on a branch line running up to the north of Scotland, hundreds of miles from anywhere, not a blade of grass is allowed to grow up between the clinkers on the permanent way. When one goes abroad one sees all the evidence of a strict economy, for example, light tram systems, with a driver, no guard and no fireman; perhaps there is a diesel car or one operated by an electric overhead rail, running out into the country, conveying goods and providing services quite cheaply and adequately.
Yet today in this country every branch line that was ever built is, with one or two small exceptions, maintained on a full-scale system, as in the past. The stations are far too well manned, and many are being painted again, following the war. A lot of people are glad about that, and it all contributes to the gaiety. But there does not seem to be any kind of wish for or evidence of simplicity and frugality, of giving a cheap but appropriate service to the public.
I should like to see a great many of these wayside stations either closed down altogether or turned into simple halts where passengers come along, go at once into the train and take a ticket from the driver; and, if the buildings that are left behind as the train steams out get a bit dilapidated, what does it matter? No one really cares, and such a service is good enough for these days. We ought to have more light railway cars manned by a driver only. We ought to abandon the handling of freight at intermediate stations; and supply heavy minerals by road from strategically placed goods stations.
We ought also, in respect of the question of capitalisation, to go in for what one finds on the Continent, light rails with spikes down to the ground or through steel sleepers, instead of the elaborate and costly system of a heavy permanent way with chairs.

Mr. Poole: They are doing that now.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On much too small a scale, I suggest.
These may be considered wild suggestions from someone who does not know the facts and figures of the railway services, who is not immersed in the subject. But that only shows how ignorant Parliament is, and in the circumstances must be, when all the knowledge is centred in the

Railway Executive and none of it is released. Failing the appointment of an expert committee of inquiry, we can, in this House, only look to what to the Labour Party must be the terrible alternative of a General Election, the return of a Conservative Government and the setting up again of autonomous competing regions which will revert to the essentials of the pre-war position, create the public interest which will get the railways on their feet, and reward many railway servants who are today longing to get back into their private uniforms.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Monslow: My intervention in this debate is due to a long association with the railways industry. Hon. Members opposite have not been quite so blatant today as at other times and there has been more dispassionate reasoning on the subject-matter. I have not, however, up to the present, discovered any constructive and concrete proposals to meet the present situation. The hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), has submitted that the railways are in a bad way, and we can all endorse that. Our problem today and the parlous plight in which we find ourselves, are a result of the evils of the past, when a Conservative Government was not disposed to give a measure of economic assistance to an industry which needed it. It has been suggested many times that the evils from which we are suffering result from nationalisation. I would say that if the railways had reverted to private enterprise at the end of the last war, they would not have been able to pay interest even on their trustee stocks.
The Transport Tribunal have given to us a report which merits our serious consideration. That report indicates what deficits are expected at the end of 1951. It is anticipated that they are: British Railways £24 million; docks and canals. £2½ million; London Transport road and rail services, £4 million. At the present level of charges, with the deficit of the Commission as a whole, and British Railways taken as a separate unit, it is anticipated that at the end of 1951 there will be a deficit of £65 million to £75 million. It is clear also that when we allow for depreciation and renewals we shall be mulcted in approximately a further £25 million.
Reference has been made to the increase in charges allowed in May, 1950. I suggest that they have been completely swallowed up by the increased costs of British Railways administration since that time. I have said that the Opposition have made no concrete proposals for solving the problems with which we are confronted. The expenditure of the Commission is largely in salaries and wages within the industry and in the purchase of coal. I ask hon. Members opposite to indicate whether they would agree with the increase in salaries and wage rates within the railway industry? Would they agree to the increased wages to those engaged in the mining industry?

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Not on these Regulations.

Mr. Monslow: No, not on these Regulations, I agree. But we are trying to face up to the losses dealt with by the Regulations, and what I am endeavouring to indicate is that these increased charges are outside the control of the British Transport Commission. The Commission have a duty to meet their obligations. I have a shrewd suspicion that if the Opposition had been in power we would have experienced what many of us experienced in other years—in 1931—when there was a 10 per cent. reduction in salaries and wage rates to meet what was then an adverse financial position.
I have certain criticisms to make of the Government regarding integration. Since the vesting day integration has been too longed delayed and should have been expedited. Unless there is an attempt made towards complete integration of the rail, road and canal services, we shall be confronted with a worsening situation than is revealed by these Regulations within the next year. We in the industry thought that if nationalisation meant anything at all the co-ordination of these three services would have resulted in a very substantial improvement in the financial resources of British Railways.
The Opposition believe that each section should be treated as a separate entity. I am fundamentally opposed to that conception. It is apparent to me that if we take road transport outside the ambit of the industry and leave it to its own resources as the Opposition suggest, it would reveal the salient truth that they have no regard at all for railways, and

no regard for railwaymen in particular. That, to my mind, proves the fallacy and hypocrisy of the attitude of the Opposition when they deal with wage rates in regard to many of our basic industries.
Reference has been made to economies. There have been economies in staff by reductions of 19,000. The hon. Member for Dorset, South, has indicated that there is redundancy on British Railways today. I wish to make a startling revelation. It is known to me that there are large industrial centres in this country where there is a shortage of railway firemen, where engine men are being paid for unremunerative and uneconomic time because there are not the necessary firemen to do what is, after all, essential work so far as the railway industry is concerned.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Is it not a fact that the shortage of firemen is due to the call up of young men who have thought it worth while to go into the railway service?

Mr. Monslow: It has no relation at all to that. If there has been a very small percentage of call-ups under Class Z, and if the situation is as I have described, obviously we must consider seriously whether we can get exemption for firemen in the present circumstances.
In large industrial centres in Britain there is a shortage of permanent way men. On large stretches of British Railways present conditions exist because there is not the necessary staff to maintain them, even at public safety level. It may sound rather startling, but I could take hon. Members to a spot not 20 miles from London where there was in the past a ganger with a staff of approximately six and where there are now only two. I leave hon. Members to work out for themselves the implications of that situation if it continues.
The Opposition are always asking for economies in railway administration. I agree that the fullest possible economy should be exercised; but the maximum amount of economy in British Railways will not materially affect the situation. As I have already indicated, we have to find approximately £75 million by the end of 1951. Even though economies may save £10 million, that would have no material effect on the position.
I wish to claim the indulgence of the House and to make one or two constructive proposals. I hope that every hon.


Member wishes to make constructive proposals. I make these suggestions for consideration by the Government. I would subsidise such an industry as this and I would not accept the present increase in charges. I would go so far as to say that the existing level of charges should be reduced. It must be recognised that transport costs are important, because they affect total costs not only of home products, including agricultural produce, but of all imported raw materials, and that affects the cost of goods manufactured for export. I would reduce those costs in the hope that the result would stimulate our export drive.
It may be that the ability of the country to pay this subsidy would be questioned. It may be said that there are certain inherent dangers in a subsidy. There may well be, but I remember that in 1919–20 and 1920–21 the Government of the day subsidised the private enterprise railways to the extent of about £100 million. There is no valid reason why, in our present economic circumstances, we should not provide a subsidy if a subsidy could be given to private enterprise by the then Tory Government.

Mr. Spence: It was a Coalition Government.

Mr. Monslow: I do not want to draw too fine a distinction.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We are going far beyond these Regulations now.

Mr. Monslow: There is another aspect, if hon. Members do not care for a general subsidy. The permanent way costs about £100 million a year to maintain. I would put that within the ambit of our expenditure on re-armament. I would free the industry of that burden and, as a result, I think that a valuable contribution to our economy would be made. Whether or not we can agree that that would be the right course, I maintain that it is vital that something should be done. Whatever we do, we must accept a measure of responsibility. We must be realists. I suggest that the Government should consider either a general subsidy or a subsidy in respect of the permanent way.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: The hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) misunderstood my reference to

firemen and the call-up. I was not referring to the call-up of the Z Reserve, because I do not think that firemen would come into that category. The fact remains——

Mr. Monslow: Firemen do come into that category.

Mr. Wilson: I stand corrected if some do. It surprises me. Undoubtedly many young men who in the past used to go into the service of the railways at a young age now hesitate to do so. They tend to take temporary employment before their call-up to the Army.
To come to the general subject of our debate, it cannot be too often emphasised that we on this side of the House are not blindly opposed to any alteration in the freight rate charges. We have been reminded by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton), who made his maiden speech today, that in the early part of last year the railways were losing at the rate of £500,000 a week, and that, notwithstanding the increases imposed on 15th May, they are now back to a loss of very nearly the same figure—£460,000 a week. We have also been reminded that we are now employing more men on the railways than were employed in 1937, and that we are moving less freight than was then moved.
In the circumstances it is obvious that some sort of drastic measures must be taken, but we say that we should not be asked to pour water through a sieve. There was one increase last May, and before we are asked to grant further increases we want to be assured that every possible action is being taken to stop up the leaks. We want an assurance that we shall not be asked again, within the next 12 months, to grant another increase—and so on each 12 months until 1954, which is the date at which it is estimated that the charges scheme will come into operation. If that happens we may well find that by the time the charges scheme comes into operation it will be out of date already, and the railways will be in a very bad way indeed.
On the question of redundancy, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members, there has been a good deal of


wild correspondence in the Press. I am sure that all hon. Members will appreciate that it is inevitable that the question of redundancy should be seriously considered when we are told that 60 per cent. of the total rail costs today are for wages, and that there has been a falling off in traffic. On the other hand, I do not think that we should take the view which is sometimes put forward that the mere sacking of employees could possibly be a cure-all for railway ills. The vital factor is to provide an efficient and cheap service. If a reduction in staff does something to increase the cheapness and efficiency of the service, there may be something to be said for it; but not otherwise.
For instance, if at a goods station it is found that by re-organisation, or greater mechanisation, two men can do the work of three, that is good for the country and the Government, and ultimately for the railwaymen themselves if the reduction leads to greater cheapness and efficiency and thus more traffic; for it is only when the industry is paying that the employees can look forward to substantial increases in wages and better conditions. If, on the other hand, a reduction in staff does not lead to greater cheapness or efficiency and more traffic, then we shall get nowhere at all for two men instead of three are two too many if there is no traffic. I have never believed that there is no other way of making the railways pay except by raising charges, sacking staff or persecuting the road hauliers. I have always held the view that there are many other actions that could be taken to make the railway services more efficient.
We want to know in this debate what is being done to increase efficiency before we are asked to agree to these charges. For instance, I should like to know what has become of the proposals put forward by the International Union of Railways in February, 1951, in their report on the position of European railways, their difficulties and the possible remedies. In that interesting report, there were a number of suggestions particularly with regard to goods traffic. First of all, it suggested the improving of the transits of complete wagon loads of traffic by reducing the number of marshalling yards. I want to know whether anything has been done about that. It was also suggested

that the number of marshalling yards should be reduced in order to accelerate transit and reduce the costs of wagon haulage.
Secondly, it was suggested that there should be an improvement in the transit of part load traffic by the creation of central stations and collection and delivery services by road to and from such stations from various reception points, this applying particularly to parcels traffic. In this country, we know that we have far too many goods stations, most of them devised and planned in the days of horses. They tend to be placed about 20 miles apart, because the radius of horse collection was about 10 miles. Some steps have been taken already to reduce the number, but in these days of motor transport it ought to be possible, without impairing the efficiency of the goods traffic, to cheapen costs by doing away with more of these goods stations.
I should like to know what has been done to improve the handling, and the mechanisation of the handling, of goods, and what has been done to minimize the losses from pilferage and damage in transit. I see that the hon. Member for Perry Barr is not in his place, but it is a point which he might look into. One of the chief reasons why traders tend to go in for C licences is that they cannot be bothered to deal with their customer's claims for losses in transit or pilferage on the railways. Although rail charges may be less than those which accrue to the traders through running under C licences and returning empty, they do that rather than bother with the long series of small claims for breakages or pilferage in transit.

Mr. Harrison: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me? On the question of pilferage, I am sure that he would not intentionally mislead the House. He is no doubt aware that during the last 12 months there has been a reduction in the amount of claims for pilferage of well over £1 million.

Mr. Wilson: Yes. I am not suggesting that these claims have gone up recently, though they went up considerably after the war, for reasons which are pretty obvious. What I am saying is that if we can reduce the handling of goods and delay in the transit of goods, the opportunities for pilferage and breakages are


automatically reduced. Particularly will that be the case if we also go in for a greater degree of variety in the containers used on the railways, which is another point mentioned in the report to which I have referred. In that report, reference is made to the multiplication of road and rail containers.
I think that a lot more could be done in regard to railway containers in designing new types to suit particular types of traffic. I was recently asked in my own division to ask the railways to develop a small container to carry broccoli which could be taken right into the farmer's field. It was suggested to me that the containers at present available are too big to take through the farmyard gate, and a suggestion was made that a smaller container might be designed which could be taken by means of a mechanical horse right into the field on the farm and loaded on the spot. I think there are various other opportunities of development of containers.
Next, it was suggested in the report that perishable-goods trains might be speeded up, and that point has already been referred to. It is true that something has been done about it, but I suggest that the perishable traffic is most suitable to be dealt with by train, because in bad weather the trains can keep better time than road lorries. I think the railways ought to make the best of that advantage by doing all they can in increasing both the speed and accuracy of delivery. It is quite possible that such a development might attract to them a good deal of the traffic which they have lost.
There were other points in that report which are of great interest, and there was one which particularly appealed to me. It was in reference to the equalisation of obligations borne by railways and road transport. Ever since the days when I was acting as a railway solicitor, it has always seemed to me that too much of railway legislation has been assumed to be like the laws of the Medes and Persians and as something which cannot possibly be altered. I have on an earlier occasion referred to Section 68 of the Railway Clauses (Consolidation) Act of 1845, which, notwithstanding the fact that it is now more than 100 years old, does impose heavy liabilities on the railways, which are peculiar to them and affect no one else,

with regard to the maintenance of accommodation works provided for owners who have long since been dead and buried. This applies particularly with regard to railway fencing. I do not know what the cost of the provision of those accommodation works amounts to each year. One hon. Member was referring earlier to a ganger and two men, but, in the old days when there were more men, they spent a lot of time in tinkering with fences. They still are supposed to keep up a pig-proof fence throughout the country, because of the obligation imposed upon the railways by that section.
Another section of an old act which has always made me wonder—though this may be regarded with horror by any legal authority connected with the railways—is Section 2 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854. Is that section still necessary? I know that it was modified to a considerable extent by later legislation, but I believe that it still applies to a large extent and operates as a valid provision, imposing upon the railways among a good number of other liabilities, the necessity of keeping a waiting room at every station or halt, and, reasonable facilities for receiving, forwarding and delivering traffic. All these things should be looked into again, and I think that an inquiry would be a most suitable instrument for doing so. If we had an impartial authority, they might go into it with an entirely new approach and with a better result than might otherwise be the case.
Finally, I want to ask whether anybody has tried to apply to the railways the doctrine enunciated by the Minister of Works when he was talking about the Festival of Britain. It will be remembered that, on 3rd April, he made this remark:
The House will, I am sure, agree with me that when something appears to be wrong with the control of expenditure of public money it is right that changes in the top direction should be made."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 9.]
I do not know whether it would be justifiable to apply that doctrine to what has been going on on the railways, but somebody ought to look into it and we should have an inquiry. For these reasons, I beg to support this Motion.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: As we listened to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), we knew


that he had some professional connection with the railways, and those of us who have had some association with the railways in other capacities, will agree with him when he says that much of the legislation concerning the railways is somewhat out-of-date and outmoded. The obligations imposed on railway companies to do certain things, date back to the time when they were a monopoly, and I think that many of those things might very well be examined at an early date to see how many of these antiquated conditions might be removed.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) referred to the railways as a monopoly, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) express a conflicting view in that regard, with which I would agree. The railways today are no monopoly. One of the arguments which the right hon. and learned Gentleman adduced was that there should be some protective body, since it was a monopoly, to save the public money and serve the public interests. Apart from the creation of so many road licences, a matter which we are not considering today, it surely needs no demonstration that at the present time the railways are certainly not in the position in which they were 100 years ago. Today, they have to compete with many forms of transport, and the obligation upon them, in terms of revenue, to provide a common service, to work to a classification of goods, and to do many other things, handicaps them.
In my view, the classification of goods—and some of us who have spent our lives on the railways know well what that means—is completely outmoded. Modern forms of transport do not go into this meticulous distinction between the different traffics. The old basis of charging what the traffic would bear and of having an eye to its value is, as I say, completely outmoded. A motor lorry owner, or some other form of undertaker, comes along and sizes up the job without having any special concern about the value of the traffic. He considers what it will cost him in terms of manpower, petrol and hours of service to do the job. Therefore, any condition imposed upon the railways other than those imposed upon their competitors is, to that extent, a handicap.
The other day, I put down a Question to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, because I felt so convinced about this point, asking him whether the time had not arrived when an examination should be made of much of the legislation imposed upon the railways today, and which has been associated with them from the time when they were monopolies. The hon. Member for Truro indicated that under the provisions of the 1854 Act the railways are still required to comply with certain conditions, and such instances might be multiplied many times. But circumstances have completely changed, and if we are thinking in terms of economy and equity, I think there must be a revision of the law in order to give the railways a chance to earn a living.
The argument put forward today is that we should oppose these Regulations on the ground that there should be some form of inquiry set up preceding the raising of the freight rates with which they deal. But this position was gone into very fully a comparatively short time ago. Some 12 months ago, the Minister, in a difficult position, had to come to this House and follow the procedure laid down. The House then agreed that an inquiry should take place, and in due course the findings of the inquiring committee were published. Have the facts so substantially changed from those days to the present time as to necessitate our going over the same ground again?
Briefly, what are the facts? They are that we are living in a time of rising prices, to which reference has already been made in some detail. The prices are there for all to see, whether we are householders, politicians or commercial men. Prices are going up from week to week. The complaint has been made today that the Railway Executive ought not to adjust its charges by 10 per cent. this week and by another 5 or 10 per cent. in three months' time. But surely in a time of rapidly changing prices, if overheads are to be kept to a minimum, and if the railways are to balance their expenditure in terms of income, they must adjust their costs, and accordingly their charges.
I assume that it is not proposed that the railways should raise their charges to


such an extent—say, by 20, 25 or 50 per cent.—as to relieve the Minister, the Executive or the Transport Commission of the obligation of coming to this House for some time. It is said that the effect of an increase in charges will be reflected in every commodity manufactured and produced in the country. Of course, that is so, but the fact is that railway charges today are very much below the general run of charges and the general level of prices. Why should the railways, the Transport Commission and the Railway Executive, be asked to underwrite the rest of the commerce and trade of the country?
It is as simple as that. We object to paying out subsidies because we think that they invite all kinds of malpractices. We think it is good for an industry to earn its keep by efficient methods, and by giving us a first-class service, and so on. For that reason, I, personally, am opposed to any form of subsidy. But, having said that, I think we must see that the railways get a chance to earn their living, bearing in mind the mounting prices which they are called upon to meet from time to time.
Having said something about the legislative position which the railways have inherited, about the handicaps from which they suffer and about rising prices, I now want to say something about the very much heavier bill which the Transport Commission have to meet in terms of labour services. Hon. Members keep on referring to the last increase in rates and saying that we are losing each week something like £500,000, which is almost what the position was before nationalisation. On the other hand, there have been some very substantial wage and salary demands made upon the Transport Commission which they have had to meet. If people talk about efficiency, whether it relates to containers, the cutting out of pilfering, the provision of clean trains or the giving of a cheap service, they should bear in mind that we cannot have any of these things unless the men working on the railways receive reasonable pay and unless they can feel that the railways provide a vocation for them.
In the old days when a boy joined a railway company—I am now referring more to the times when the railways resembled monopolies—he felt that he had a vocation before him and could

look ahead. He could go through the various grades. Having become a lamp boy, he could go into the signal box, and, similarly, through to the sheds. In bad times the railway companies casualised their staff because they could not see their way to take on men on a permanent basis at enhanced rates.
But men are not going to join or stay with the railways unless they have this sense of security and vocation. We shall not find the men coming into the railway sheds, into the signal box or into the service as train crews, or even into the offices or on to the administrative side, unless they are offered terms comparable with those which they can get elsewhere in local government or in similar services. We shall see the manpower on the railways being constantly turned over, with no sense of responsibility, and in consequence the service will become worse.
We should not seek to economise on the wages paid to the men and women who have loyally and faithfully done a very good job with very poor tools. The railway companies were in very great difficulty just after the war, because they had been unable to keep up maintenance generally to its proper level. No one was to blame. It was only because the men loyally agreed to work longer hours, and because they were trained to make the best of such resources as they had at their disposal, that, in a time of great national difficulty, they were able to do such a great job of work.
The problem of compensation is a difficult one. The F.B.I. have made certain proposals about certain sections of the railway lines. They say we should shut down some sections of branch lines, but it may be in the national interest to maintain them, for instance in Scotland. It is not a very good thing for the Commission from an economic point of view to have to maintain these sections. The Minister or the Commission must look at this problem. If it is decided that in the national interest certain sections must be kept open and from the point of view of profit it is uneconomic so to do, some arrangement should be made about it. The lines should be regarded as part of our defence service and certain charges ought to be allocated to keep them open.
What are the railways getting for the services they perform for the Post Office and the Defence Services? Are the costs


economic? Are they working on some old formula which is not an economic proposition? I suggest that if the matter were looked into, we should find that the British Transport Commission are entitled to a greater revenue for the services they are performing on behalf of the Services and the Post Office. It may amount to £1 million or £2 million and in a time of great stringency we should look into all these things. The railway managements and the British Transport Commission are doing a grand job of work in difficult times and it would be no encouragement to them if we failed to agree to the Regulations before us.

6.42 p.m.

Sir Ralph Glyn: I want to suggest for the consideration of the House one or two matters which occur to me as one who has had a considerable working knowledge over the years of the effect of the House of Commons upon railway management. I am all in favour now of a commission of experts, because I believe that the times in which we are living are such that a real live body of that sort would be useful to the railway management and indeed to industry as a whole. But I think not one single politician ought to be on it.

Mr. Edward Davies: Would the hon. Member hold up this system of charges, assuming that we accepted his thesis that the time is apposite for some sort of inquiry and assistance? Does he think that at a time of rising prices we should hold up all these charges until such a commission of inquiry published their findings?

Sir R. Glyn: I was coming to that. If one had a commission of experts to go into the whole system, it would take some time and in my view it is quite impossible for the railways to resist the necessity of these increased charges at present. I appreciate the qualities of those who are serving on the Railway Executive. I am prejudiced because they are personal friends of mine; I knew them in the old railway company days. But we should not assume that it would be any slight on their expert knowledge if there were an outside committee of outstanding experts to inquire into the situation.
We are living in times which are not comparable with those that created the

conditions in which the railways operated a few years ago. This is a matter of psychology more than anything else. If one goes on giving a dog a bad name, one will never get good service out of him. There are thousands of keen railwaymen of every grade who feel very disheartened about the remarks that are made in spite of all that they try to do. I am very sad when I see locomotives in a dirty condition and I think all who love the railways feel the same; but the fault is not with the Railway Executive. They cannot get the manpower. We are facing a diminution of manpower for industry, and I am very much concerned about how the railways are going to secure the necessary minimum of recruits to maintain a proper service. I do not think it can be done without a considerable reduction of services.
One of the things I always remember is that when I had to come here to try and get Bills through the House, no matter what was in the Bill, any hon. Member could talk about any conceivable thing to do with the railways. It may have been a useful thing to do, but it was very annoying to those of us who tried to get Bills through and tried to obtain greater efficiency on the railways. The House of Commons and Parliament, by those restrictions, have done more to hold up the railway industry than any other single thing.
We have heard some extremely interesting speeches, including a very notable maiden speech from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton), in which he stated the facts from his tremendous experience. If it is his view from the legal standpoint, as well as from other considerations, that a commission of this sort would bear fruit, I think we ought to establish one. We ought not to take up a flourishing plant to see whether it is growing every time there is a change of Government—and, after all, it is conceivable that there may be a change of Government. It is not fair to the industry to do that. There are many industries which have been bedevilled far too much by politics. One is the railway industry and the other is coal.
I do not see how it is possible to expect a highly efficient service to be operated if we in this House are always able to


inquire into it and dig up its roots. Therefore, I believe in having a first-class outside commission with no politicians on it, which would be able to make a report and which would have not only the confidence of the country but the respect of those in charge of railway administration today. It should be quite possible to set up such a commission. I do not think we ought to assume that only in these islands are there experts in the administration of railways. There are admirably operated railways in Canada and in other Dominions and experts from those railways might bring to us a fresh point of view.

Mr. Harrison: In advocating that we should take advantage of the knowledge of those running the railways in Canada, would the hon. Member admit that they have almost the same financial difficulties as we have in this country?

Sir R. Glyn: I am not denying that. It might make them view our difficulties with greater sympathy. When I was first engaged on the railways in 1920, the Great Eastern, as it then was, imported a general manager who had been operating a Dominion railway. He came over here with all sorts of new ideas which were not at all popular at first, but at any rate it did lead to an interchange of views and we got out of one or two ruts.
I do not think we realise how great is the burden that has been thrown on the Railway Executive and the British Transport Commission by these continual rises in costs. It is a problem which the railway companies would have had to face had they been in existence. I do not think hon. Members appreciate some of these rises in costs. I wonder how many hon. Members realise, for instance, what a leap there has been in the cost of providing railway uniforms.
There is need for these increases in charges. There is need to reinforce the confidence which I certainly have in those of the Railway Executive who are in charge. There is need of an expert commission which would investigate not only the railways but transport generally in these islands. I think it is very important. I should think their terms of reference should be broad enough to enable them to recommend that such portions of the railway system as are uneconomic but are

necessary for defence work should definitely be taken out of the normal operating side, and there should be a self-denying ordinance imposed on every hon. Member whereby, if the suggestion were made that a branch line in his constituency should be shut down, he should support it. Otherwise we should never get anything done. It is that continual clash between political expediency and railway efficiency which has led to a great many of our difficulties.
Therefore, with the knowledge that there is going to be a great shortage of manpower in the near future, I believe that the sooner such a commission can be appointed on those terms the better, and I hope and believe it will restore confidence in a service of which we are all proud and which we want to see making its fair and proper contribution to the productivity of this country.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: We have all listened with respect to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), because, in spite of the fact that he has been a politician for many years, I have never known that to detract substantially from his ability as a railway operator. Therefore, I cannot understand his suggestion that there should be no politicians on the suggested commission of inquiry. He has been a good politician and a good railwayman. I do not see how he can suggest that a politician could not possibly be an expert in any inquiry into the transport industry. He is an example of what can be achieved by politicians in that direction.

Sir R. Glyn: I realise that the conditions in which I served are never going to return, and I am sure that if politicians continue to interfere with the nationalised railways, the railways will never be a success.

Mr. Harrison: That is a view which I do not entirely share with the hon. Baronet. I would, however, recommend one of his suggestions, regarding the closing of uneconomic lines, to those Scottish Members who have appealed to the House for the retention of uneconomic lines in Scotland.

Lord Malcolm Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman must admit that a lot of the Scottish lines have a strategic value.

Mr. Harrison: I agree entirely, but at the moment they place an uneconomic load on the railway finances which, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), ought to be looked at very carefully. The hon. Baronet said that we ought to have an inquiry into the position. He assumes that there are certain basic factors relating to the railways of which we are unaware and that we should have this inquiry to ascertain the facts. I suggest that most of the facts and disturbing features of railway operations today are generally known. It is a pretence and with a view to avoiding these basic difficulties that hon. Members opposite put forward the idea of an inquiry.

Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe: Does the hon. Member agree with the decisions of the Guillebaud Court of Inquiry which I quoted?

Mr. Harrison: In the main. The inquiry which the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted suggested, not that there should be an inquiry by a special body of experts outside the industry, but that there was need within the industry for inquiries to be made in the directions mentioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Member for Abingdon suggested that there should be an outside body of experts detached from politics and also from transport matters. I cannot imagine how they could be expert or could give any direction to the industry or be of any use at all. I find it difficult to understand exactly what hon. Members opposite are recommending should be inquired into and who should be the people to make the inquiry. I am certain that experts will not be found outside the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole) referred to the adoption of diesel power units because he had read of a large saving in upkeep and so on which would be effected by their use. He said that if we adopted the diesel engine as the standard locomotive, there would be a saving. I think that is an important recommendation, not because of the saving that can be effected through the use of diesel power units, but because it illustrates the fact that before railways can be made to pay and take their proper place in British transport they must be permitted to invest very substantial sums in capital equipment, since a lot of their

present capital equipment is completely out of date. When we speak of Diesel engines we speak of the investment of huge sums of capital. I hope hon. Members appreciate what they are recommending when they suggest that we should have more up-to-date power units.
Let me refer to one city that has been very much in the news when transport has been discussed—Birmingham. That city has grown to a terrific size, but sidings accommodation in Birmingham is very much the same as it was 20 years ago, and not substantially different from what it was, say, 40 years ago. Yet the city has grown into a huge metropolis demanding masses of coal, coke and other heavy freights and requiring every day 20 or 30 trains to be unloaded in the vicinity of the city. It was my painful experience to see this situation in Birmingham about a month ago. In the Birmingham area proper there were 15 to 20 freight trains standing one behind the other, all fully manned by train men. This was Saturday lunch time, and it would take until Monday morning to clear those 15 to 20 trains in the Birmingham sidings. On my journey to Birmingham in the fast express, I passed about 10 more trains all converging on to Birmingham, making still worse the block which already existed in the area.
A lot of money will have to be spent on sidings and shunting accommodation in the Birmingham area. I know the position is aggravated because of staffing problems in the Birmingham area, but a substantial factor is the necessity to modernise siding and shunting accommodation. How can that be done if we are going to adopt a policy of shrinking and economy by withholding from the British Railway Executive the necessary capital to modernise and re-equip their very much out-of-date equipment? I suggest that we should look at that very seriously when we consider these questions of economy. If by economies the Opposition mean a shrinking of the services and the withholding of money from the Railway Executive, then I cannot imagine a time in the future when the railways will pay their way. On the other hand, given a fair chance, I believe the Railway Executive can make the job pay.
I turn next to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who is not in


his place now, although he was here a moment ago. He said that when the 16⅔ per cent. increase was announced last year, the Minister promised that, in the main, it would meet the deficit. Despite the increase, the noble Lord complained, the position today is that the deficit on railway operations is almost the same as is was before the 16⅔ per cent. increase was made.
I should like to draw attention to the speech of one hon. Member opposite who suggested that the machinery for adjusting these rates is out of date under modern conditions. If the present rather cumbersome methods are adopted and 12 to 18 months are spent in dealing with an application to increase railway freights and fares, then by the time the fares have been put on to the new level the railways are in a parlous state facing, as they are, present rising prices. As a contribution towards the future prosperity of the industry, we could look at the machinery for adjusting freight charges and passenger fares.
The noble Lord said that traffic might leave the railways to be carried by coastwise shipping, and I should like to give a comparison between these transport charges. In the main, rail freights have increased by about 90 per cent. over pre-war. Several figures have been mentioned this afternoon, but I can assure hon. Members opposite that 90 per cent. is about the right figure. But the coastwise shipping rates have increased by 220 per cent. over pre-war. We are constantly accused of not putting the transport system into proper order, but the fact remains that whereas railway charges have increased by 90 per cent., coastwise shipping rates have increased by 220 per cent.
There is another feature which suggests to me that railway carriage is too cheap—that we are carrying goods far too cheaply. Take the example of apples and pears. The charge for carrying 6¾ lb. of apples and pears from Evesham to London—106 miles—is 2d. Before the war we carried them for 1d. Similar rates exist for a good many other commodities.

Mr. Nabarro: As the hon. Member knows, my constituency is very close to Evesham. Does he suggest that growers in the Vale of Evesham can do up 6¾ lb. as a separate consignment of apples and pears and can send them to London for 2d., or is that figure calcuculated pro rata on a very much larger

minimum consignment of, say, 10 cwt. or 15 cwt.? If so, what is the minimum consignment?

Mr. Harrison: It is not a question of sending 6¾ lb. in a separate consignment.

Mr. Nabarro: What is the minimum?

Mr. Harrison: That is the overall charge for the carriage of this commodity. For apples and pears the charge is 2d. for 6¾ lb., whereas before the war it was a penny.

Mr. Nabarro: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer my question? He gave this case as an example and he must now give the House the facts. What is the minimum quantity which produces a rate such as that which he has quoted to the House? Is he aware that, even accepting the facts he gives, the railway rate from Evesham to London for fruit is substantially in excess of the road haulage rate, and that is why the railways do not get all the traffic?

Mr. Harrison: I could not tell the hon. Gentleman what is the minimum quantity, but I am sure we can get to know that figure before the end of the debate. I was about to make the argument which the hon. Member himself has just made—that, irrespective of the fact that we are carrying apples and pears from Evesham to London, 106 miles, for 2d., the road haulage industry can carry the consignment at a still cheaper rate; and that is a very important feature affecting railway operations.
When we are considering the economics of railway operations we cannot take into account only the cost of providing railway services. Some overheads have increased by more than 200 per cent. over the 1938 figure. What we have also to take into consideration are the rates in operation in competitive forms of transport—and there we come to the question of the competition of road transport with the railways. Can hon. Members visualise a time when, on short-distance passenger services, we can compete successfully with road passenger services, bearing in mind the road charges? We cannot possibly do it.
Can we do it for freights? At the moment there is something like 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. difference between the prices charged for freight rates by road and those charged by rail. The


latest 10 per cent. increase will further widen that difference. Our basic problem is how to reconcile the cost of rail transport and still keep the business, with the relatively low operating costs of road haulage. If we cannot solve that problem, we shall have a further railway financial problem before us.
I think the problem can be solved and that the solution lies in improving the general efficiency, the locomotive stock and the siding accommodation of the railways—in investing some money in railway operations. That will pay us over the years. On the other hand, if we accept a policy of starving the industry, it will go from bad to worse as time passes. The question of the relative charges between road and rail is the only thing which substantially threatens the future economic life of our railways. That is the only thing into which we should inquire: how can we solve that difference in prices?
When the Minister announced an increase of 10 per cent. in rail rates, he told us that it would realise about £20 million for the railway revenue in a full year, but he said that it would not in any way deal with the deficit on railway operations. That announcement caused great concern amongst all in railway circles. It caused concern in every branch of railway operations, in every department and amongst the men generally. We feel that the continual rise in rail freight rates will very soon bring us to the border line where decreasing returns of traffic set in very seriously. We shall reach a point where we drive from the railways considerable bulks of traffic, and that traffic will have to be taken on the roads. We do not want that to happen. We must do everything we can think of reasonably to prevent that situation from arising. But how is it possible to avoid this accumulating deficit of finance in railway operations unless we either receive more traffic or increase the rates?
We are very seriously concerned at these increases, and it is only because we—that is, the railwaymen—cannot see what else immediately could be done to meet the financial position, and only because we are threatened with an ultimate overall deficit, that we accept this inevitable evil of continuously raising the

railway freights. We share with the general public concern at the question of freight rates. We share the concern of the Government and of the Opposition at these increased rates. But we just do not know what can be done quickly to meet the position and avoid the accumulation of that huge deficit of money. If it is allowed to grow, it will become such a burden round our necks in the future that railway operations will be damned for many years to come.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Shepherd: I was not really sure from the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison) whether he was supporting or opposing the suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend that we should have some sort of inquiry into railway operations. At any rate, if his intention was not clear, it is, I think, abundantly clear that there is on the other side of the House a good deal of uneasiness about the railway position. I share that uneasiness because I come from a railway town, and naturally I have that affection for the railway services which is commonly borne by those who come from railway towns.
I really must say how much I always regret in these transport debates the absence of the hon. and learned Member for my old town, Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen). He never thinks it worth while to come to this House when matters of railway interest are being discussed, and I must say that I take a very poor view of that. Crewe is, perhaps, the leading railway town in the country—although I know there may be some dispute about that. At any rate, it is a substantial railway depot, and for the hon. and learned Member for Crewe to be absent from debate after debate in this House is a grave reflection on his carrying out of his duties, and an insult to the town from which I come.
I want to discuss the question of the railways in a reasonable manner, because we should not get too excited about the political issues arising from them. I think hon. Gentleman opposite are getting a bit more reasonable. It was not possible six or 12 months ago to talk about the railways—about nationalisation—without a very angry maternal glare coming into their eyes. That sort of thing really will not do. We, the Conservative Party, may very soon be foster mothers of this somewhat unfortunate birth, and we have,


therefore, to consider this question divorced from all political implications, and with a desire to see a strong railway industry.
What most concerns all of us at the present time is that the railways have got a bad name and that, by and large, the men on the railways have lost confidence in themselves. The morale on the railways at the present time is very, very low. Anybody who has had anything to do with the railways knows quite well that in order to keep up the railway system the men on the job must be on their toes all the time. Trains run late not necessarily because the locomotives are old or the stock is old, but because throughout the whole system there is no regard for efficiency, or that desire to get the trains through, such as there was before the war.
We must all insist, if we are to do anything for our railways, on trying to get back a real spirit of service and that keenness which was the outstanding feature of the British railways. We have in this country conditions ideally suited for railway operations. No country is so fortunate as ours in terms of suitability for railway operations. We ought to have, as we had some time ago, the finest railway services in the world. We had a short time ago the finest men in the world on the railways. No railway services could come up to the standard of the old railway services of this country, and we must not lose that spirit, or all the economic steps we take will be of little value.
That the situation is not good can be seen from two figures—the figure of pilferage on the railways and the figure for damage. It is true that the figure for pilferage has declined on that of last year's, but it was until recently 10 times the pre-war figure. That is an alarming state of affairs, and it does focus our attention on an unsatisfactory situation. The figure for damage is also disturbing. Therefore, it is obvious that there is something wrong, and when hon. Gentlemen opposite ask what we are going to do about the railways, we reply that we share with them the difficulty of determining what is efficient when it is a monopoly. It is going to be very difficult in any of these nationalised industries to say that a thing is efficient when it has

the monopoly of the service. It is true that the railways have not a complete monopoly of transport, but there is a complete monopoly of rail operation, and, therefore, we have difficulty in determining whether it is efficient or not.
Hon. Gentlemen on the other side say that the workers are insufficient, and that the staffs are not big enough; but, of course, we all know of stations where, although there is a shortage of signalmen, there may be 20 porters running about each train; and that obviously reveals a bad state of affairs that ought to be gone into. However, I am not at this stage concerned with particular questions of policy. All I am concerned about is that despite the fact that we have excellent men at the centre—and no one would say that Sir Eustace Missenden or the present chief knew too little about his job or was not an excellent man—it is still quite impossible—and this is the failure of nationalisation—for a strong impulse at the centre to permeate to the perimeter. Instead of having a number of separate regions with their own impulses we are trying to get impulses entirely from the centre—from London—and they are not getting through to the perimeter, or, if they get through, they are so weak as to be barely discernible.
As was suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend, there should be two forms of inquiry into the railway. First of all, I think there must be an inquiry into the general question of policy. We know there must be reductions in staff. We know that the set-up has to be adapted to modern conditions. But there are also many difficulties of an administrative character, and if we look at the railway administration from the inside we find systems existing that were put into operation 40, 50 or 60 years ago, and that have probably acquired great sanctity during that time.
The time has come, surely, not only to consider at a high level, the questions of policy, but also to consider whether administratively the railways are being run as well as they ought to be. This is not a novel idea. As a matter of fact, it is common practice in industry for a firm or a series of firms to improve administrative efficiency in an industry. I would remind the House that it is a relatively common practice in nationalised industries. If I am rightly informed, both


B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. have installed within their organisations outside firms who are concerned in improving their administration. Without in any way detracting from the work of Mr. Peter Masefield, the chief executive of B.E.A., I think he would himself be prepared to agree that a good deal of the improved results in B.E.A. have been due to the activities of the firm of consultants who set up their internal administration.
Now if a relatively new organisation, which has not had a chance to get into a rut, as the railways have, and which has not got a legacy of old-fashioned administration from 30, 40 or 50 years ago, can say they need the services of such people, surely the railways are in greater need. There could be a tremendous shake-up in the railway administration if an outside firm which specialised in all the latest methods of running things were to get inside the industry and be let loose. I know that there would be tremendous resistance to many of the things they would want to do, but unless something of that nature is put into operation the railways will not pay.
All of those who like the railways and want to see the railways re-established in the position they once held, must realise that the railways were fashioned as an instrument for the last century, and they are now having to face circumstances, conditions and competition wholly dissimilar from those which then existed. We must therefore cast our minds afresh. It is no use pathetically flinging one's arms in the air, as did the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), and saying, "Costs are going up, and so are road charges. What can we do about it?" The answer is that even by a surgical operation the railways cannot be altered so that they take part in the 20th century under 20th century competitive conditions. That will not be done merely by pouring a lot of sugar over all the difficulties. It will hurt a lot of people; it will mean that railway stations which people think ought to stay will have to go; it will mean that railway staffs will have to be cut in many instances.
Do not imagine for one moment that there is a shortage of railway staff. I am told that in the extension from Manchester to Sheffield, where they are putting on an electric train, which is in many

ways the solution of our problem, the unions are insisting on having two men inside the cab. With a dead man's lever there is no need for two men.

Mr. Harrison: The hon. Gentleman mentioned B.E.A. as using administrative experts to guide them, and he also said that the railways had inherited a legacy of old-fashioned ideas. On these occasions the hon. Gentleman contributes to our debates with a feeling of good will towards railwaymen and railway management, and he will no doubt recognise that the railway experience gained over the years is very valuable. That experience suggests that it is very important to have two men in the cab of a diesel engine, where there is no guard immediately available, in order to provide protection in case of a spill or smash.

Mr. Shepherd: I am quite satisfied that on the line from Manchester to Sheffield there is no need to have a second man in the cab, and that the railway unions are wrongly insisting upon having the second man. The hon. Gentleman says that railway experience is valuable. Of course it is. We all know that we would not call upon a firm of consultants to run the railways. All I am saying is that they ought to examine the internal administration of the railways, which is very old, and which, so far, has failed to measure up to modern conditions. I am sure that in that direction a great deal of improvement could be made.
I conclude by saying that I hope the House will today impress upon the right hon. Gentleman that what is now happening is not good enough; that while we may readily agree that increasing costs in all directions make some increases in charges inevitable, we are by no means satisfied that the railways are run in an efficient manner; and that something drastic must be done to restore the confidence of the railways in themselves. Until we get back to the spirit which once actuated the railway workers of this country, we shall have no chance of getting real efficiency. We must not only concern ourselves with improving the methods, but we must get back to the old standard of personal efficiency, because in many respects lack of efficiency is due to thousands and thousands of men not having the personal


efficiency that they had 10 or 15 years ago.
All these things have to be done, and I hope that when replying on behalf of the Government the right hon. Gentleman will not say that they are content to take this 10 per cent. and that nothing more will be done. I am sure there is a desire on both sides of the House that something ought to be done to try to set the railways on their feet once more, to give them a start on the road. Other industries, like the airways, face a difficult task with deficits, but at any rate they can see their way ahead pretty clearly; they can see that when this, that, or the other is done things will be better. At the moment, the railways are to some extent without hope and without spirit.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): No.

Mr. Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head and says, "No," but it really is true.

Mr. Barnes: The hon. Gentleman is making too far-reaching a statement.

Mr. Shepherd: The Railway Executive may well believe they have the solution in their minds. What I say is that the ordinary man working on the railways sees himself occupied in a business that is going down the drain.

Mr. D. Jones: Mr. D. Jones indicated dissent.

Mr. Shepherd: It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. That is exactly what these men think.

Mr. Jones: I say "No." If the hon. Gentleman were to mix with the ordinary railway workers, as those who are on the railways do, he would understand that he is talking a lot of silly nonsense.

Mr. Shepherd: Well, that is not an answer to the point I am making. I mix with railwaymen, perhaps not quite as much as the hon. Gentleman but I mix with them a good deal; I go to my home town occasionally and get their views, and I know that at the present time they do not feel that they are in a business in which there is a future; they feel that they are in a business which is on the decline, and the duty of the right hon. Gentleman and the Railway Executive is to restore their morale, because until we

restore morale we shall not restore personal efficiency. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accede to the request of my right hon. and learned Friend to have this inquiry, to let us see whether we cannot plan the future for British Railways so that they regain the efficiency and the prestige they once had.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Collick: I have listened with great interest to every speech that has been made in this debate, and, if I may say so with the utmost respect to hon. Gentlemen opposite, it seems to me that very little has been said which faces up to the real problem at issue. The Opposition are praying against these Regulations which propose to increase rail freight charges by 10 per cent. They oppose the Regulations, and the only positive line they have on the whole subject of rail transport is to put forward the notion that there should be some sort of inquiry. I have not myself been convinced that they have yet made a case for an inquiry.
What is the problem with which the railways are faced? My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) drew attention to the fact that the railways are having to pay for the commodities they need—timber, coal, copper, steel, iron and so on—250 per cent., and in one case 300 per cent., increases in price over what they paid for those commodities pre-war. Hon. Gentlemen of the Conservative Party believe, so I have always understood, in the principle of private profit. They champion that as a principle motivating industry. I think that I am correct in saying that the railway freight charges, if these Prayers are agreed to, will be about 109 per cent. over the pre-war charges. If that is the case, will hon. Gentlemen opposite tell me how they expect British Railways to be able to pay 200 per cent. and 300 per cent. increases over pre-war charges on the things that they have to buy and make a surplus if their rates of increased charges can be only 102 per cent. or 103 per cent., or whatever it may be?

Mr. Drayson: If some of the items of equipment have gone up in price by the percentages which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, is that not only a small part of the total expenditure? Is


he not going to say that the cost of wages have also gone up to the same extent since 1939?

Mr. Collick: I only wish that the hon. Gentleman were correct in his facts. The Railway Executive would be exceedingly pleased if his facts were correct. If he told the Railway Executive that they do not have to pay much for coal, that they do not use much coal, and that they do not use much timber for sleepers, it would be quite contrary to the facts, as is apparent to anyone who knows anything about the situation.

Mr. Shepherd: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say what part of the railways' total cost goes to the purchase of these materials which have been referred to.

Mr. Collick: I think that the hon. Gentleman can find that out for himself. The facts are readily available in the Transport Commission's Report. If he would look at the figures of the amount of timber that goes out of Crewe South every week for railway re-laying, he would not say that it is an inconsiderable item.
It will not be disputed by anyone that the basic situation which faces the railways is that their income is nothing like adequate to meet their expenditure. I concede to the Opposition that even if this 10 per cent., which the Minister is proposing, goes on to charges, the problem will not be solved. I put it no higher than that. Therefore, it seems to me that merely to suggest, as the Opposition are doing, that there should be an inquiry does not meet the situation at all.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite are constantly talking about the railways being in a bad way and having a bad name. I have sat in this House for a fair time and I have never heard one hon. Gentleman opposite, including, I am sorry to say, the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), and excepting the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn), say one good thing about British Railways since the nationalisation Act was passed. If anyone cares to look through the last debate on railway transport which we had in this House, he will see the speeches which came from the benches opposite, and they were, in my opinion, a disgrace to many of the people who made them.
May I remind hon. Members opposite of the sort of speech which was made, I think, by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Fisher), who brought forward every little tinpot complaint that could be found about the railways, as if the railways in this country were something of which we ought to be ashamed. Let me remind the House that there are no other railways in the world that have such a good record as British Railways. If anyone would deny that, he has only to go to Waterloo during the rush hours or to Liverpool Street or Victoria, to see the tens of thousands of people who pour in and out of London every day. Millions of these people were carried by British Railways in 1949 without a single fatal casualty.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is in order to talk about passenger rates and matters affecting passenger transport on the railways? I thought that the whole of these Regulations dealt with freight rates.

Mr. Speaker: We are not discussing passenger fares. That is a matter which is going before a tribunal eventually, and, therefore, we cannot discuss it.

Mr. Collick: I well understand the technicalities of debate, and I was giving an example, which I think, I am entitled to do, because we have had certain statements made in a contrary sense. All that I was endeavouring to say was that there are no railways in the world—and I challenge the Opposition to prove the contrary—that have the safety record of British Railways. We ought to be proud of them, and to say so. If I have any regrets, it is that the railway authorities of this country do not make more use of that very important fact. We have no need to apologise for British Railways. Goodness knows, they have plenty of shortcomings, and I could keep the House much longer than I propose to do in talking about some of them, but we do ourselves and the country an injustice by always decrying things, many of which we ought to be proud of.
Hon. Gentleman opposite talk about what they regard as the inefficiency of railway labour. Here I want to have a word with the Minister. We pay far too little attention to the important difference between now and pre-war days. In pre-war days the one main feature which attracted workers to the railway industry was that


they were sure of a job for life; it was a permanent job, and it was because of its permanent nature that it attracted a good type of person in railway employment. Under conditions of full employment, which the Labour Government have created, that no longer applies. We cannot get people to come into the railway industry today on the basis that they are assured of a job for life. They would laugh at the suggestion.
In the matter of wages and wage rates, let the fact be faced that the railways have not had a good record in post-war years. I need not recite all the delays which took place in the recent wage negotiations and the slight improvements that were made. I warn the Minister now that unless he pays greater attention to this part of the matter than is being done at present, the time will not be long in coming when he will not only be actually short of staff, but short of the really highly-skilled staff who are responsible for the safety record to which I have referred.
We have to improve conditions, and one of the conditions which it is nearly time was remedied is the appalling situation of railway superannuation. Today we can have a locomotive driver, driving the best trains from Glasgow to London, from London to Plymouth, from London to Liverpool, with 30 or 40 years on the footplate, finishing up without a penny of superannuation. Is that a situation which is creditable to this country; is that a situation which is creditable to the nationalised railways? Of course it is not. If we go to Sweden or to any of the Continental countries, we find that in many respects the wage and labour conditions are substantially better for the highly-skilled railway operatives than in this country. The Minister has got to give much more attention to this part of the problem.
Just as there is this problem of the increased cost of the materials the railways have to buy, so there is the problem of the revenue from current traffic being much less than it should be. Why is this? It is because the Minister has been far too gentle on the question of C licences and all that flows from that.

Mr. Speaker: The question of C licences is outside the scope of this debate.

Mr. Collick: I readily accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker. I merely want to make the point that unless we do something more to see that we get what we have always stood for, a really coordinated transport system, we cannot expect to get into the railway revenue the amounts that should be there.
There is another matter. There is no industry in this country which is so vital to the nation in times of international difficulty as the railways. I wish that the story of what the railways did during the war were better known. I wish that the enormous part the railways played were more generally known. Never once in the worst of the bombing did trains stop running in and out of London. What are the Government doing in recognition of the strategic importance of the railways to the country? The railways upon which the country will have to depend in an emergency do not get a penny for such considerations. It is time that the Minister looked at that.
There is also something else that ought to be looked at. During the war, and arising out of the railway control agreement, tens of millions of pounds went into the pockets of the Treasury as a result of railway operations. I think that the figure is roughly about £125 million. I have always understood that the policy of the Government Front Bench—we have heard it said again and again—was to plough back profits into industry. Have we not all heard appeals made time and again that profits should be ploughed back? But has not the time come when the Government might think it desirable to plough back into the railways some of this £125 million, and by so doing allow labour conditions to be improved and enable the sort of improvements we all want to see to be carried out? The Minister has to do something of this kind.
The Minister seems to me to be rather sitting back thinking that this 10 per cent. increase will solve the problem in some mystical way and that in no circumstances must we subsidise a nationalised industry. I wish that the Minister of Transport would do half as much for nationalised railways as the Minister of Agriculture has done in making private farms profitable. He could well take a leaf out of his right hon. Friend's book by putting in a little bit more drive to make sure that


the nationalised railways are the success they ought to be.
I ask the Minister seriously and earnestly to consider this. Some of us have been very patient on the matter, but our patience is not inexhaustible. We feel that it is time for the Government to pay a little more heed to putting the railways on a really sound basis. I cannot see how that can be done in these times of difficulty without some sort of assistance, such as by ploughing this money back into the industry. Hon. Members opposite are in a very weak position on the whole of this matter. I beg them to be honest with themselves. They must know that they have no policy to deal with British Railways.
The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) champions the road interests, and I know all his associations in that connection and how readily he can put the case with that vigour we are so accustomed to having from him in the House. I gather from the many speeches he has made on this subject that if the Tories were in power, they would hand back road transport to private enterprise. I understand that to be a clear line of Conservative policy. If I ask him to tell me what the Tory policy is for the railways, then the only thing that can be said in answer is that they have already told the House that their policy is that of an inquiry and decentralisation. I am ready to give way to any hon. Member opposite who wants to dispute that. No one disputes it because Members opposite know as well as I do that that is the situation.
I hope the Minister will give consideration to the suggestions I have put forward. If he does not accept them, then there are many of us who will wait patiently to hear what are his positive proposals.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: Speeches from Members opposite have fallen into two categories. First we have had speeches, such as the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole), which have made no attempt at all to defend the 10 per cent. increase. Then we have had those speeches, such as the speech of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), which have put forward the conventional and orthodox defence, that because increases have

taken place in costs it is logical that an increase should take place in charges. I agree straight away that there is something to be said for that point of view. Some increase is certainly justifiable, but the weakness of that argument is that it is represented as a complete defence when in fact it is only a partial one.
The ground for this Prayer is that while the increase covers a certain increase in current costs, it also covers an inability on the part of the railways to adjust themselves to present-day conditions and a lack of coherent transport policy on the part of the Government. In past debates we have suffered from the disability of having no measure of railway efficiency. The railways are an industry which perform services and do not produce a measurable volume of goods. But now, as a result of the Report of the Court of Inquiry, we have a measurement of efficiency, a measurement which comes from the Railway Executive itself and is very alarming.
Wages and salaries of staff closely associated with the movement of traffic rose between 1938 and 1949 by 119 per cent., whereas the work performed, measured by engine miles, fell by 5 per cent. Of the increase in wages and salaries, between 105 per cent. and 110 per cent. is accounted for by improvements in pay and conditions of service. In other words, the implication is that there was a decline in productivity of some 5 per cent. Again in the Report there is a similar citation. The wages of footplate and engine staffs rose from 1939 to 1949 by 116 per cent. Of that 116 per cent., changes in rates of pay and conditions of service account for 105 per cent., again the implication being a fall in productivity of some 5 per cent.

Mr. Collick: Mr. Collick rose——

Mr. Jones: May I conclude this part of my argument? In manufacturing industry we have an increase in productivity of some 30 per cent. compared with 1938, an increase in the productivity of the coal industry of some 2 to 3 per cent., but the case of the railways is the worst of the lot, because there is a decline of about 5 per cent.

Mr. Collick: I think the hon. Gentleman stated that the wages of the locomotive staff have increased 116 per cent. I can assure him that that is not so. The


116 per cent. applies only to a very few people and it is not representative of the whole of the locomotive operating men.

Mr. Jones: I have taken the figure from the Report of the Inquiry, and it is the second of two instances which I have cited. The first is the much more important and alarming, and the implication from it, leaving aside altogether the second instance, if the hon. Gentleman objects to it, is a decline in productivity by 5 per cent.

Mr. William Ross: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us how a engine driver, driving between point A and point B can increase his productivity?

Mr. Jones: I readily agree that to measure the efficiency of the railways is not easy. It is a disability from which we have always suffered. The Chairman of the British Transport Commission has given certain technical co-efficients but those technical co-efficients were on too narrow a front. But here in this Report for the first time we have a general measure of efficiency, even though not complete, and the broad conclusion is a decline in productivity by 5 per cent.
Why has this decline taken place? The clue to the answer was given in the speech of the hon. Member for Perry Barr when he talked about the burden of overhead charges. In fact, as one well knows, if the production of a factory declines whilst its machinery remains the same, its costs increase, and that, in fact, is what has taken place on the railways. The decline in productivity is the inevitable concomitant of falling traffics, while equipment and methods remain comparatively stationary. The hon. Member for Perry Barr nods his head in assent. That is a fact.
To be inferred from that fact is another, at which the hon. Gentleman, however, stopped short—that if we raise charges we induce a further decline in traffics. By inducing this further decline in traffics, we induce a further decline in productivity and an increase in costs, making necessary a further increase in charges, the increase in charges generates of its own a further increase in charges. Thus, we are faced with the depressing, dreary prospect of an endless succession of increases in charges. That is the reason for these Prayers.
How is this chain of recurring increases to be stopped? There is only one way. By a rapid adaptation of the equipment and the methods of the railways to the decline in traffics. The test to be applied to this particlar increase and to the policy of which this increase is part is—is it or is it not calculated to bring about this quick adaptation? I do not want to speak about the labour side, not being particularly knowledgeable about these matters. On the labour side, however, I would say that the answer is clearly "No." The manner in which this increase has come about—"You unions can have this increase in wages, and there will be an increase in prices to offset it"—that particular manner does not induce adaptation. If it is calculated to do anything at all, it is calculated to encourage a certain lethargy towards adaptation.
I well understand that in the days of unemployment railway men were reluctant to face adaptation. That resistance and reluctance is not defensible in days of full employment, and unless labour can enter the era of full employment, facing up to the responsibilities of that era, and not bringing into it the habits of mind of other days, then I would say that it is they who are jeopardising the continuance of full employment.

Mr. Poole: Mr. Poole rose——

Mr. Jones: I would rather not give way as this is not a crucial part of my argument, and I do not pretend to be knowledgeable on the labour side.
I have drawn attention to what I believe to be a succession of increases, one increase generated as the result of another, and this policy of an endless succession of such increases makes sense only of one assumption, namely, that it is of short duration and that within two, three or four years, as a result of the charges scheme, there will be established a new relationship between road and rail, as a result of which there will be a fresh diversion of traffic to the railways, and impelled by this new stream, the railways will be carried out of their present state of under-utilisation.
If that is the assumption—and I think it is the only intelligible assumption—I do not believe that it is shared by many people on either side of the House. It certainly is not shared by the hon. Member for Perry Barr. It is relevant to ask


why it was in the first instance that traffic left the railways for the roads. Was it because of charges? To some extent it was, but only, I think, partially. Much more important was the fact that road transport brought with it a technical advance over the railways. The lorry enabled industry to adapt its transport to its own requirements, and to fit it into the business. In other words, while hon. Gentlemen opposite were concerned with the problem of integrating transport as a separate and distinct service, there had been in existence for a considerable time a trend of quite a different kind, a trend which had as its aim the integration of transport with industry as part of industry.
The Act of 1947 pitted itself against that trend, and that is the weakness of the Act and of the British Transport Commission. That is the diagnosis of the hon. Member for Perry Barr and I agree with his diagnosis. Where I differ from him is in his conclusion, a conclusion also that we have heard in the speeches of certain hon. Members opposite, which is to deny to industry this technical benefit and advance, and safeguard past investment and employment on the railways by some arbitrary method of driving traffic back again. I do not think that that is the solution.
The solution which emerges from the speeches delivered on this side of the House is as follows. Let industry have the benefit of this technical advance. Let us be prepared to sacrifice some of the past investment in the railways, cut the loss, and bring the railways back on an economic, even if restricted, basis by relating their charges to their costs. The weakness of the railways in the past was that, owing to the traditions which grew up, railway charges reflected the average cost of the whole system and did not correspond to the individual cost for each service. The hon. Member for Birkenhead asked what our policy was. That is my policy, to sacrifice some past investment in the railways and put the railways on an economic, if restricted basis, by adjusting charges to individual costs. It is an attempt——

Mr. Manuel: Is the hon. Member's case that railway finance should stand on its own feet, that the

more lucrative traffics carried by road hauliers should be distinct and separate, that the uneconomic loads such as coal and ore, which can only be conveyed by the railways, should be left to the railways, and that we should bring railway labour and conditions into line with those circumstances? Does he not agree with integration in any sense at all?

Mr. Jones: I do not want to go into the matter in detail because it is very complicated. What I am suggesting is that a rational charges scheme is one in which the charges for both road and rail reflect the costs of each service performed. If we have that—it does not matter whether it is under the same ownership or different ownership—we have a rational apportionment of traffic as between the two; but if our charges for the whole of the nationalised undertaking, both road and rail, are to be based, as railway charges were before the war, on average costs the British Transport Commission will lose remunerative traffic again to the C licensees.

Mr. Poole: The hon. Member is labouring under a misapprehension when he suggests that railway charging before the war was based on average costs. That was never the basis of railway rating and charging. If he suggests that charges should be based on the cost of carrying the traffic, does he suggest that because it costs as much to convey a ton of gold as a ton of coal by railway, both should bear the same charge?

Mr. Jones: It is known that the railways have a classification according to the value of the goods carried rather than according to the cost of the service performed. The solution for the railways is to get away from that tradition.
The inquiry which has been suggested tonight by my hon. Friends is desirable even from the point of view of the railways themselves. When I first heard the suggestion a year ago, I was not enamoured of it. I did not like the idea of having so many nationalised undertakings and so many investigating bodies parallel with them. That is not a very tidy or efficient system. I am aware of the weaknesses of a watch-dog body, the way in which it can induce a shelving of certain proposals on the part of the nationalised undertaking and undermine authority.
In spite of those defects, I believe that this is an instance where an inquiry is required. It is necessary for the following reason. I understand that a body of people newly placed in charge of a nationalised undertaking are hesitant to face the need for any contraction in its equipment or radical alteration in its methods. I understand that they have difficulty in making such a contraction acceptable to the employees. I believe that in both those tasks they would be immensely fortified if they had the backing of an outside authority. Again, a nationalised undertaking cannot without a blush place the facts of its operations before the public, but an outside body can; it can tell us which are the remunerative services on the railways and which are not. We have some idea of that position in the United States, but we have not known what the position is in this country.
I believe that an outside inquiry would be a tremendous help to the railways in winning public opinion for the battle which I believe they have to face—that of breaking with the traditions which inhibit them in the matter of charges. If I were the Minister himself, I would accept the proposal for an inquiry. I suggest to the Minister in all seriousness that the 1947 Act is crumbling in his hands and that the perpetual increases in charges betoken an incipient failure to integrate on the lines laid down in the Act. He is exhorted by some of his hon. Friends to curb the C licensees. Rightly, he has refused. The corollary to that is that he must face some contraction on the part of the railways. If he cannot steel himself to a decision as between these two difficult choices, the best thing he can do is to have an inquiry as a preliminary to the fresh start in policy which I believe the increases make abundantly necessary.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. Champion: I was particularly interested in the points made by the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) about the failure of the railway industry to keep pace with the increased productivity of other industry. That is a very valuable point to make, but he must realise that we cannot hope to make the same percentage increase in productivity in all the industries which go to make up our

national economy. It is obviously impossible to increase the productivity of a signalman and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) suggested in an intervention, it is impossible for a driver to increase his productivity. In any case increased output per man employed is something to which my right hon. Friend and the Railway Executive must continue to apply their minds. They must never be satisfied with what has been achieved.
I would point out to the hon. Member for Hall Green and also to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton), who made an excellent maiden speech, that the Railway Executive has been tackling the matter of the number employed on the railway, and from December, 1947, to December, 1950, the number fell from 641,000 to 605,000. It is true that that number amounts to 37,000 more than we had on the railways in 1938. How can we justify that? How do the Railway Executive justify it. I think that the answer is fairly obvious. It is that between 1938 and 1950 there has been a shortening of the working week. We have seen a tardy recognition of the railwayman's claim for increased rates of pay, and the railways have been struggling hard to catch up with the tremendous arrears of maintenance which accumulated during the war period. Obviously we had to turn as many men as possible on to the task of operating the railways, and to cut as much as possible the number of men employed in actual maintenance. That is an extremely important factor in this connection.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: I was perfectly well aware of the qualification which the hon. Gentleman is making. I stated it explicitly. If he will look at paragraph 184 of the report of the committee of inquiry he will see that the figures I gave, take into account improvements in basic pay and conditions of service.

Mr. Champion: Not wholly. They do not take into account the extremely important point which I was making of catching up with arrears of maintenance. It is something of which everyone who is aware of railway operation during the war must have some knowledge. As a working


railwayman, I saw what happened, and how we were putting off necessary improvements of maintenance because we wanted every available man to continue the job of carting the country's necessities during that period. It is a matter to which the Railway Executive must give their attention, so as to use manpower to get the maximum, consistent with the conditions laid down in agreements covering the railways.
I noticed that the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) made reference to the possibility that the Tory Party might change sides and become the foster-mother of this industry. All I wish to say to him is that if the railways look to the Tory Party for sustenance and help they will have a pretty grim time, judging from what has happened in the period between the wars, when we saw the industry continually appealing for fair play on the railways. We remember the agitation for "a square deal" for the railways, and all the rest of it.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have the finest railways in the world. I am bound to say that I share his concern over pilfering on the railways. Despite the fact that the figures have considerably improved, we still have a long way to go before we reach figures which I should regard as satisfactory. All the pilfering which takes place on the railways is not the responsibility of the railwaymen. Some of it, of course, is. I would not attempt to justify any man who is employed in this industry, or in any other, pilfering from traffic in transit. We, the Railway Executive and the Minister must continue to apply our minds to the task of reducing the amount of pilfering.
The hon. Member also said something in which I think there was some point, that there had been a considerable increase in the damage to stuff in transit. A large amount of that damage increase undoubtedly arises from the increase in hump shunting. One of the features which has increased the efficiency of our shunting-engine-miles is this hump shunting, but it has some disadvantages, and this is one of them. I hope that the research departments responsible in this matter will carry on their investigation,

with a view to cutting down the amount of damage which is being done.
The right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) told us that we ought to set up an ad hoc expert committee. I have heard hon. Gentlemen opposite sneer at the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider something on which the Government were unable to make up their minds. It seems that what is happening now is that the Opposition are taking an easy way out of their dilemma. They are not able to find real items of criticism in the working of the railways or to suggest improvements necessary to effect the economies which they say would make the proposed increases unnecessary.
I remember my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary telling us when we were in Opposition and the party were not quite sure which policy they ought to pursue upon a certain matter, "We took the course of deciding to ask a great many questions." That seems to be the policy which has been adopted by the Opposition in regard to nationalised transport, and particularly with the present increases. They wish to ask a large number of questions. It is always an easy way out—to keeping on asking questions.

Mr. McAdden: And never getting the answers.

Mr. Nabarro: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) for allowing me the opportunity to ask him a question. Would he entreat his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport to answer our Parliamentary questions on this matter? We might get somewhere. At present the right hon. Gentleman will not answer anything.

Mr. Champion: I was speaking of the suggestion of setting up some committee to do something which hon. Gentlemen opposite are not able to do. I will give this point to them: When I heard the hon. Baronet the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) putting up this point, I began to think there must be something in it. His knowledge of railways and his love for the transport system of this country are unique on the benches opposite. He told us that we ought to set up an expert committee. Where are we to get the experts? Are we to get them from America? [Interruption.] Not from Kidderminster, surely. Judging by the fact


that America seems to be in a pretty bad way with her railways, I think we should not get any.
In the course of a lecture tour in America I found myself on a railway station in Providence. There I read something which took me right back to the "square deal" days of the pre-war period. Stuck up was a great poster which said:
Uncle Sam's Railways. To keep them up to the nation's need, the railways should be permitted to earn not less than 6 per cent. Signed, The Association of American Railroads.
They obviously are suffering from the same sort of difficulty as ourselves. They want experts there, if experts are needed at all, and they have none to spare for us. I seriously make the point that it is much too early to talk about setting up an independent inquiry. The Transport Commission have been in charge of our railways for four years and they should be given a reasonable period in which to carry out the changes which they have in mind before we set up an independent inquiry into the state of the railway industry.
What is the cause of these Regulations which are being prayed against by hon. Gentlemen opposite? They are needed because of the recent increases in wage rates of about 7½ per cent. Wages in the railway industry now are 220 as against 100 in 1938. I regard these increases as but a tardy recognition of what was needed by the workers in the industry. But there is still not a satisfactory standard of living for the mass of the railway workers.
Recently, as the result of an advertisement in one of our local papers, I examined some of these figures. The advertisement offered labourers and mates aged 21 to 55, on day work, wages of £5 15s. to £5 18s. I compared the figures with those for guards. Such promotion is given only after long service. I found that the railway guard receives in his first year £5 9s. a week, in his fourth year £5 18s. With the recent increases he will go in his fifth and subsequent years to £6 2s.—for a job requiring considerable skill, experience, and the acceptance of responsibility for the whole train. [An HON. MEMBER: "Disgraceful."] This compares with the wage paid to a labourer who can come into that industry at any time in his life between the ages of 21 and 55.
I am not saying that the labourer is getting too much, but I say, with some justification, that the skilled men within the railway industry are getting too little even after the recent increases. In talking about the railway industry, many people are inclined to expect transport workers to be too moderate and too modest in their demands because they provide a service and not an article for sale. We have no right to expect to run our transport industry on cheap labour and we must face the consequences of the increases in prices which have come about.
Another cause of these Regulations has been the considerable increase in the price of railway materials. The equated prices for railway materials stand today at 259 against 100 in 1938. These materials have to be paid for just as the increased wages have to be paid for. Unless we subsidise—and I have not heard hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest a subsidy—it means that we have to consider raising the prices we charge both for freights and passenger fares. Freight charges are between 90 and 95 per cent. above pre-war.
These increases are important, but their effect must not be exaggerated. There is a danger of our doing that. Despite all that has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite, it still is the case that there is not a coin in general use in this country small enough to enable the shopkeeper to cut the price of foodstuffs if all foodstuffs were carried free of charge. That is an amazing fact but an important one, which hon. Gentlemen are inclined to forget. I do not want to go into the points in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), to which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) took exception. However, it is remarkable how far and how cheaply things are carried today.
What must the industry do? It must try to secure economies. In reply to the hon. Member for Hall Green (Mr. Aubrey Jones) I said it was necessary that in this House from time to time we should impress upon the Transport Commission the necessity for keeping themselves alert, pressing continually in the right direction. While doing that, we must also recognise what trends are in the right direction, and there are many trends within the industry which show that we


are going in the right direction. There has been a considerable increase in working passenger miles, a considerable increase in the freight ton miles. There has been an increase in train loading and in net ton miles per engine hour. Today the latter show an improvement of 25 per cent. over 1938. It is a big and an extremely important figure. When hon. Gentlemen opposite talk about the necessity for someone looking into this industry, one would imagine that nothing was being done within the industry whereas, in fact, they are showing in this important regard an improvement of 25 per cent.
I am sure that startling improvements in productivity per man employed can only come from a greater degree of integration of the whole industry. A greater degree of co-ordination over the industry will only come provided that it is permitted to work out the plans contained in the Act of 1947. It would not happen if hon. Gentlemen opposite who introduced a Private Members' Bill had their way over this field——

Mr. D. Jones: But they did not.

Mr. Champion: Fortunately they did not. They created something of a record in the document which they presented to this House in that Bill. We must have greater capital expenditure on the railways. We must sweep away much that is old-fashioned remaining from the last century, but it can only be done if there is capital to do it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: It will take a long time to do it.

Mr. Champion: It is partly because of the deliberate policy of this Government in stopping great capital expenditure that the figures I have quoted are not as good as they might be. There is a deliberate policy, and we understand the reason for it. Nevertheless, I think that spectacular figures will only come as and when the Government decide upon a considerable increase in the amount of capital expenditure permitted to the railways.

Mr. Nabarro: There has been a great deal of specious argument in this debate about increasing capital expenditure. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us by what margin he believes that capital expenditure on the railways should be increased over the figures of £41 million for 1948, £44 million

for 1949 or £42 million for 1950, for it has not increased at all in the last three years in spite of the enormous advance in the cost of materials?

Mr. Champion: I have not looked into the figure, but obviously it would be in excess of those which the hon. Gentleman has quoted, partly because of increased prices and partly because there are tremendous arrears of work, with a necessity for an overall increase in capital expenditure.
The fact is that we must make this undertaking the most efficient possible. I would quarrel—and it is right that I should—with my noble Friend Lord Lucas when he talks about the transport industry of this country being a "liability." It is nothing of the sort. I only wish, for the sake of so many countries in the world, that their transport systems were as good as ours and that their "liabilities" were no worse. Of course, Lord Lucas must have meant something rather different from that, but certainly I disagree with him if he used the word in that context.
Increases in charges were foreseen by hon. Gentlemen opposite. For example, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) spoke in the proceedings in Committee upstairs, on the Transport Bill, he said:
I have indicated why Stock Exchange prices are not apt to get the real value of an undertaking, and in this case one has to bear in mind the three favourable points with regard to the future of the railways. I state them with great frankness, and hon. Members can consider their value, or whether they should be discounted. First, there would have to be in the post-war period some adaptation of railway charges to the variations of price levels from every point of view. If you have a general rise in price levels, you have to have some rise in railway charges."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 5th March, 1947; c. 1722.]
How right the right hon. and learned Gentleman was, and how wrong of him to come here and move a Prayer against the charges which obviously he foresaw would be necessary from time to time to meet the new price levels. I cannot help thinking how adequately the right hon. and learned Gentleman puts the case in a few sentences, and I cannot help remembering sitting in that Committee and watching how well he pleaded the cause of the former owners when fighting for them on the question of compensation.


Incidentally, I would mention how much greater would have been the freight-passenger charges today if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite had had their way on the Compensation Clauses of that Bill.
What is happening in other industries which are held up as models? I took some little pains recently to look up details of some of the activities of right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), is managing director of the British Metal Corporation, and it is fair to assume that, although that company now deals very widely, in the main it deals with metals. Non-ferrous metals have gone up over pre-war days, taking the pre-war year of 1938 as representing 100, to 479.8 up to February, 1951. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler), is a director of Courtaulds, who sell textiles, and, according to the "Monthly Digest," their prices have gone up from 100 in 1938 to 398.8 this year.

Mr. Nabarro: On a point of order. May I have your guidance Mr. Deputy-Speaker? What have international raw commodity prices and the fluctuations of levels of prices to do with the freight charges which are concerned in this debate?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think the comparison may be quite relevant.

Mr. Champion: I think it is right to introduce this comparison into this debate, as will be seen in a moment.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) is a farmer, and farm prices have gone up from 100 in pre-war days to 318 in post-war days. Transport costs have gone up from 100 to 190 overall, by comparison with those figures. These are the right hon. Gentlemen opposite who are telling us to keep down costs in the transport industry, but who are failing completely to deal with that problem in the industries for which they are responsible. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), told us that we had got to stop the rot of rising prices, but I say that if hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for some of these private enterprise industries, about which

I have been speaking, would stop the rot so far as their own increases in prices are concerned, they would be doing something extremely useful and they might consider doing something about reversing the trend. If they could bring down prices to the same level above pre-war days as the charges in the transport industry, it would be a very great step in the right direction.
I have just one final point. The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South, quite rightly called attention to the fact that we have to set about the task of looking into the industry. How right he was when he said that we should consider the position of branch lines, though I would point out to the noble Lord—and I hope he will read these words—that between 1923 and 1947, when the industry was in private hands, only 240 miles of branch lines were closed. In the three years from 1947 to the end of 1950, as against the 20-odd years in private hands, 253 miles were closed to all forms of traffic, showing that, in three years, we have considerably exceeded the mileage that private industry closed in the whole of the period between 1923 and 1947.
Although I say that it is the job of the Minister of Transport and of the Railway Executive of the British Transport Commission always to be alert for these increases, and although I say that it ill becomes right hon. Gentlemen responsible for industries whose increases have been so much higher to throw stones at the transport industry, I do say that the matter is one which we have to watch carefully. I think it is right, in the circumstances, realising the reasons for these increases, that we should tonight reject these Motions to annul the Regulations.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. John Hay: On the last occasion when the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), and debated in this House, the position which presents itself tonight, whereby I follow him, was reversed. On that occasion, he chose to say some rather rude and uncomplimentary things about the remarks I made to the House. I propose to heap coals of fire on his head by not doing the same tonight. The speech to which we have just listened, justifies to the hilt, I think, the case we on these benches have been making during this


debate for an inquiry into the working of the railway industry.
I propose in the course of my remarks to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member, but I think that, in a way, it is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister did not himself reply to the speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) at the beginning of this debate because, of course, it is largely a case of the Minister coming to this House to justify the increased charges. I know that this is a debate on an Opposition Motion to annul the Regulations, but I think that the Minister, or someone on his behalf—possibly the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, who is experienced in these matters—might have made some sort of case rather earlier in the debate. But, whatever the facts of that may be, and whether or not I am justified in saying that, I do not think there is much doubt that during this debate the reasons for these increases have become pretty clear.
As I see it, the British Transport Commission now asks permission of the nation to increase freight charges because its running expenses have gone up, and there are four main elements for that increase. The first is the increase in the cost of coal; the second is the increase—as has been mentioned by many hon. Members—in the cost of the various raw materials which the industry uses; the third is the increase in the price of petrol; but the fourth and biggest element of all is, of course, the increase in wages.
I want to deal principally in my remarks tonight with that increase in wages, but, first of all I wish to make one or two short observations with regard to the other points. As to coal, we have really got ourselves into a fantastic position. The coal industry, from time to time, puts up the price of the raw materials it supplies to the railways. The railways have to pay more for their coal, and, because of that, they then have to put up their freight charges. One of the biggest freights they carry is coal. That, again, forces the coal industry to put up its prices still further, and so we go on.
We are now in the absurd position where we have two horses on a merry-go-round each trying to catch up with the other and never doing so. I would remind the

House that the increase in the price of coal, which is reflected in the charges proposed by the Regulations which we seek to annul tonight, is not the latest increase. A further increase in the price of coal has been announced since then. It is a pretty gloomy prospect for industry, and particularly for the railways.
As to raw materials, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East, and a number of other hon. Members opposite have asked those of us on this side of the House, "What else would you have us do? What else could the Executive do, faced as they were with the constantly rising cost of all the raw materials they need?" I will say at once that there is not much else that the Railway Executive could do, but there is a great deal which the Government could have done a long time ago. For instance, to start with, they could have avoided that absurd policy of devaluation, because a lot of the rise in prices is a result of that mistaken policy put into effect as long ago as September, 1949.
As to petrol—another element in this price rise—it was, of course, the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Stafford Cripps, who last year put that swingeing Duty on petrol which the railways themselves, as well as the private road hauliers and the nationalised sector of the road haulage industry, now have to pay. If the Government are searching for new revenue, they ought, before deciding to put up the price of important raw materials like petrol and oil by imposing an increased Duty, to remember and reflect upon the consequences of that Duty so far as the transport industry is concerned.
I now pass to the major topic—the wages paid by the transport industry. I think that we on this side ought to make it clear to the House that we do not deny for one moment that these increased wages were vitally necessary. I do not think there is any dispute between either side about that. Railwaymen's wages in this country for a number of years now have been about the lowest and it is high time something was done. But what we on this side object to very strongly is the way the whole business was managed by the Government. It is a procedure out of which neither the unions concerned nor the Government come with any credit. The Government do not come out of it with


any credit because of their quite unjustifiable interference in the negotiations, and the unions because of their original rejection of the result of what was to all intents and purposes an arbitration by the Guillebaud court of inquiry and also the equivocal action of Mr. Figgins at a somewhat later stage when he said quite openly he was not prepared to tell his men to accept the award.
It is very difficult for anyone not to feel some considerable sympathy with the Railway Executive. They were caught between the upper millstone of the Government and the nether millstone of the unions and they had no field of manœuvre at all. Faced with an unfavourable situation and rejection of a large part of the wage claim they had put forward, instead of accepting that the railway companies could not pay more than the original £6½ million which I think was the amount that the court of inquiry had suggested it was the maximum within the Executive's competence to pay and still keep their industry going, the unions went a step further and appealed directly over the head of the Executive to the Government.
They had a precedent, of course. The miners had done it a while before and they had got away with it. But as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby said earlier in the debate, this procedure has exploded once and for all that cherished Socialist theory that all the boards of these nationalised industries should be free and independent and completely devoid of any kind of Government interference. That has always been a theory held strongly by the moderates of the party opposite.
I want to recall to the House some remarks of a very well known Socialist on this very topic. He was writing in 1933 about the nationalisation of transport in the days then to come. He said this about the very point I am discussing:
…it is necessary that the management should be sufficiently free from those undesirable pressures associated with both public and private Parliamentary strategy, political lobbying, and electoral 'blackmail.' Subject to whatever ministerial or checks or appeals may be provided in the public interest, the management must be a responsible management and must be able to stand its ground in the interests of the undertaking which is committed to its charge. If the iron and steel manufacturers want an uneconomic freight for the transport of iron and steel, it would be disastrous for them to be able to frighten the

management with the prospect of Parliamentary pressure promoted by the M.P.s representing the iron and steel constituencies. Similar considerations arise as regards political or electoral pressure from other powerful industries, sections of the travelling public, or from the large body of people employed by the transport undertaking. It is better that avenues should be provided for the settlement of these conflicts outside politics, including proper provision for the negotiation of labour conditions between the Trade Unions and the management, without the Treasury on the one hand forcing the management to be unduly tight because of its fear of the effect of concessions on other departments, …

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): What has this to do with the Regulations?

Mr. Hay: With respect, the wage increase forms so large an element of the increases in the freight charges we are discussing, and the way these increases were negotiated was entirely contrary to what the party opposite believe. I hope, therefore, I may continue because it is relevant. The quotation goes on:
and the management on the other hand being afraid of the users and industrial labour because of their power at the polls.
That was written in "Socialisation and Transport" by no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary. I do not know whether he formed one of the Members present at the Cabinet meeting which approved the approach which the Ministry made to the Railway Executive in which they said they should agree to the £12 million increase. If so, he had gone a long way from the position in which he stood in 1933. Of course, the villain of the piece was the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) who was then Minister of Labour. It was he who told the unions to go ahead. It is important to appreciate the position we have got into, where the Government are intervening directly as participants in wage negotiations of this sort between the unions concerned and the management boards of the nationalised industries.

Mr. Edward Davies: While agreeing with the general thesis that the ordinary machinery should be used, may I ask the hon. Member whether he would agree that there are some circumstances in our national life in which it is the job of the Government to come in, and where the alternative is a completely chaotic state of affairs, which, although £12 million is involved in this instance, would have


cost us very much more if the country had been upset and there had been a transport strike?

Mr. Hay: It is a question of degree. I would say that the rôle of the Government is to give general directives on policy, and I believe that is laid down in the Transport Act. What I deplore in this case is that the unions and the management of the railways have had an arbitration on this matter, the unions rejected the advice of the arbitrating tribunal, which was the Guillebaud Committee, and, having done that, they appealed direct to the Minister, and the Minister with Cabinet approval, said, "Yes, all right, the Railway Executive must pay £12 million, although the independent inquiry have said that they should not pay more than £6,500,000."

Mr. H. Hynd: Would the hon. Gentleman prefer a strike?

Mr. Hay: If the union propose to call a strike because they are dissatisfied with the failure of the industry to pay the wages for which they ask, then the Government ought to back up the industry and not give way to blackmail.

Mr. Hynd: May I remind the hon. Gentleman of the precedent of the coal industry when similar action was taken? The Government stepped in, and it was not a question of £12 million; they gave a very much larger sum of public money.

Mr. Hay: And that is the precedent which the railwaymen had in view in this matter. It was very undesirable.
I want to pass to a rather more important topic. There is not the slightest evidence that, as a condition of granting this wage increase, the Government ensured that the Railway Executive had the benefit of any improvement in productivity by the railwaymen concerned. All they got was a written promise that the unions concerned would consider increases in productivity. The very limited proposals which my right hon. and learned Friend has already mentioned—the abolition of the knockers up and all the rest of it—were allowed to go by the board.
If this procedure of Government intervention in wage bargaining between nationalised industries and unions is to be

a regular feature—and it appears that it is going to be—then I say that the Government must come out with a definite policy, making it clear that as far as they are concerned they will only intervene providing there is increased productivity as a result of the wage increase.
All hon. Members, in whatever part of the House they sit, must agree that we have to get a far better spirit on the railways than we have at the moment. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that we have the finest railway system in the world. Indeed, we have, but the great fear that we have on this side of the House is that that fine railway system will gradually go down the drain if something is not done quickly to put the house of the Railway Executive in order.
Hon. Members ask us: What is your policy? Our policy has always been to decentralise this great monopoly, to give a certain freedom of action to road hauliers and at the same time to decentralise and put into competition the different regions of the executive. That has been our policy, and hon. Members opposite know it as well as I do. For this particular limited objective, we say there should be an independent inquiry. We believe that unless we have such an inquiry we shall find that matters will not get better on the railway but in fact will get worse.
In conclusion, I want to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, despite what he said about our putting questions. What is the Government's view of the future of transport in this country? For example, do they subscribe as a whole to the defeatist views of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, which have already been mentioned today? Let me remind the House of what he said:
For good or ill, the transport system of this country, in the main, is a liability for ever.
If they agree with those views and if that is their policy, we know where we are and the sooner they introduce their subsidy proposals the better.
If they do not agree, two consequences follow. The first is that Lord Lucas must go. That will not be a great loss. The second is that we can perhaps agree on some kind of concerted general policy to work out some method whereby the


railways can be run not only profitably but also efficiently in the service of the nation, for we on this side of the House have not said that we shall de-nationalise the railways.
The first essential is to obtain the facts, which only an independent inquiry can give. I hope that in his reply tonight the Minister will tell us that the Government are prepared to recommend the setting up of such an inquiry. If he does not do so, I suggest that the House must judge the question, as the country surely will judge it soon.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: We have now reached the concluding stages of this debate. I think the Minister will agree with me at least in this—that it has been a valuable debate and that a very high standard of speeches has been maintained on all sides. I think I shall also carry the House with me when I say that not the least valuable speech was the notable maiden speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton). He made a masterly and powerful contribution to the discussion, and certainly on this side of the House we find him a valuable recruit to the speakers on transport.
My difficulty in replying to the debate is that hardly any of the speakers from the opposite benches have answered my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe). May I repeat one of the points which he put? He asked that there should be an independent and expert inquiry into this great railway industry. Let me put this perfectly bluntly to the Minister. If he will give us that inquiry he can have his Regulations tonight and there will be no Division on this Prayer. We do not want to delay the right hon. Gentleman. We realise the difficulties the railway industry is in; Heaven knows, everyone realises them. This is an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn); let them have their 10 per cent. and let it be on condition that the right hon. Gentleman will come to that Box an say that we can have the independent and expert inquiry. I think that is a perfectly fair and reasonable offer to make and I must say that I believe there are many hon.

Members opposite who think the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to accept it.
As I am making the final speech from this side in this debate, I want to say a few words about the speeches which have been made in it. After all, that is what a debate is for. We always listen with interest to the speeches of the hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris). Today he said that if we were dependent on the profits which were to be made in the railway industry, there would not be very much chance of anybody getting a decent living out of it. We could not agree with him more about that; there is not the slightest doubt that we shall not get much out of the profits made in the nationalised railway industry.
But he went on to say that increased charges will not solve the problem and he made the rather sinister observation—I hope he will not be angry with me for saying so—that he thought we must recast the financial structure of the railways. I do not know quite what he meant by that. I thought he might be referring to a subsidy, but whether he meant a subsidy or not, the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Monslow) was quite open and blunt about it. He said that we had got to have it at once, and that it was the only thing to do.
What is the policy of the party opposite about a subsidy for the railways? I believed at one time that they meant to have one. I thought it was their intention. I remember that at the time when this settlement was discussed, the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) asked the then Minister of Labour a question. He asked:
Can the Minister explain to the House why the railwaymen should be expected to bear the economic burden of running the railways any more than the employees of the air corporations are expected to carry the subsidies on those corporations?
To which the right hon. Gentleman replied:
I think that my hon. Friend, when he hears the ultimate outcome of the discussions, will find that we have not lost sight of that factor."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1951; Vol. 484, c. 1472.]

Mr. Hynd: I think that if the hon. Gentleman looks the matter up again, he will find that it was my namesake, my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd), who asked that Question.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am much obliged. I have a namesake in the party opposite and it leads to very great difficulty. The Minister of Labour made it perfectly plain from that answer that what he had in mind was a subsidy. I do not know whether his departure from the Government means that the subsidy proposal has been dropped, but I think that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to make up their minds about it. They ought to tell us whether they want a subsidy or whether they do not want a subsidy, and I think it would be much fairer to the industry if they did so.

Mr. Poole: And food subsidies?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am coming to the hon. Member for Perry Barr (Mr. Poole). He made a speech which was remarkable for its brevity and for the fact that he did not refer to C licences. He said that the railways were like a sick child—"a very sick child," he said. Well, if you have got a very sick child, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, you do not stand back and say, "It will come out all right. Probably by 1954 he will be all right." That is apparently the policy adopted by the Government. You get a doctor; you call in the experts, and try to find out whether there is anything you can get to make the child a little better. That is exactly what our intention is in asking for an inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the trouble is not a new one. But in a sense it is a new one. It is perfectly true that there were difficulties in the railway world before the war, but what he forgets is what happened in 1947. In 1947, in the seething cauldron of English industrial life, the right hon. Gentleman suddenly fixed the railways with frozen capital—with alterations going on all round about them, with all the competition to which they were subjected—and said they had to stay like that. There is another difference. There is public money involved now; it was private money which was involved then. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern with the interests of the former railway shareholders. It is nice to hear him say it was a pity they did not get all that they ought to have got. It is nice to hear hon. Gentlemen opposite saying those things.

Mr. Poole: Mr. Poole rose——

Mr. Thorneycroft: I was just going on to say how much I agree with the hon. Gentleman about another matter. He did say—not on this occasion, but on the last occasion when these matters were mentioned—that he wanted an inquiry. He said:
May I reinforce the request to the Leader of the House that we should not be asked to consider this matter in a debate on a Prayer to annul the order? It would place many of us in an embarrassing position.
No one would wish to embarrass the hon. Member. He went on:
May I also ask the Minister whether, before these charges come into operation, he is not prepared to have an independent inquiry into the operation of nationalised transport, because many of us feel that steps could be taken inside the present organisation which would render these increases unnecessary?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th Appril, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 655.]
I hope that that does mean that we shall find him in the Lobby with us tonight. The hon. Gentleman makes speech after speech criticising every facet of the right hon. Gentleman's transport policy, and yet he goes on voting for it. I expect that tonight he will be walking arm in arm with the right hon. Gentleman through the Government Lobby whispering: "I'll be true to you, darling, always in my fashion." The hon. Gentleman's trouble is that his fashion is that he is faithless everywhere except in the Lobbies of the House of Commons. We think that he ought to kick over the traces altogether and come and vote with us tonight, or else spend his time permanently in the matrimonial bed. So much for the hon. Member for Perry Barr.
I pass to the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness. He said that we never made any concrete proposals. It depends what is meant by "concrete." I think that we have been pretty clear and specific tonight, and we have made a very definite proposal to the right hon. Gentleman. Our proposal is that a committee of experts should be called in to examine what is going on inside this industry, to see whether it cannot help in any way, and to see whether some measures cannot be taken to secure economies in its internal workings. That is a very clear and specific suggestion.
The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he paid a tribute to the work of the Transport Tribunal. Well, I pay a tribute to its work. But it had a fairly easy job.


It conducted no private inquiry whatsoever on this occasion. It merely got a letter from the Minister saying that he assumed all the figures were correct and if the situation was as bad as that, they had better put up the charges by 10 per cent. Well, I could have done that myself. It is quite an easy task. Moreover, on the last occasion when the Tribunal looked into this matter, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bristol, West, pointed out, they themselves said that there was a limit to the extent to which a tribunal of that kind can really examine the detailed workings of a great industry such as this. They said:
We think that the material at our disposal for determining that matter is inadequate.
They went on to say:
The estimated economies appear disappointingly small, but we can only assume that those responsible for the conduct of the Commission's activities are best able to forecast what economies they are likely to achieve.
I am not blaming the Tribunal. But we are not that Tribunal. We are quite a different tribunal, and we are not entitled to assume that those responsible for running the affairs of the Transport Commission have made all the economies which anybody could possibly make. We do not assume it, and we demand that some inquiry should be made to investigate the matter.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Edward Davies), followed and gave a typical example of the sort of matter which ought to be inquired into. Following a speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson), he wanted an examination of "this great mass of legislation," most of which had been introduced at a time when the railways were a clear monopoly. I may say it is not the fault of the right hon. Gentleman that they are not a clear monopoly today; he does his best, and he cannot be blamed for that. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North, wanted that legislation re-examined to see whether some of the burdens it imposed upon the Railway industry could not be lifted off the shoulders of that industry. I agree with him entirely. But how can we find that out unless we have somebody who can look into matters of that kind? It is just that kind of point, which might lead to very substantial economies, and the rest

which could be properly looked at by an inquiry of the kind for which we ask. 
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Harrison), whose views I may say I always listen to with great respect upon transport matters, said that there were no experts outside the industry. I thought he was too modest. He went on to mention a point which was raised in an interruption in his speech, that of the strategic line. It is a very difficult thing to determine. It must always be difficult to decide how far a line is essential from the point of view of our military defence and how far it is necessary from the point of view of the ordinary transport of the country. It is certainly not a matter on which one can make up one's mind across the Floor of the House; it is a matter which we have to look at.

Mr. Poole: Yes, we can.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The hon. Member for Perry Barr can make up his mind very quickly on many subjects. I say that we should like to look at this matter very closely. There are all sorts of interests—naval, air and military—to be taken into consideration.
The Central Consultative Committee appointed by the Minister have clearly suggested that. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman is attracted by that Committee. At one time it was a big point in his policy. He said that the consumers were going to be specially looked after, and this body was to be set up to look after their interests. Perhaps it is one of those bodies which the Government have set up and forgotten about ever since. They have published a report. I will send the right hon. Gentleman a copy. It would be a sensible thing if the whole of this report by the Consultative Committee, on this point and on other points which I have not time to mention, could be put before a committee of experts to see whether a proper examination of them could be made.
The final point made by the hon. Gentleman, and one with which I agree, was a warning to the House. He said, coming to this matter of diminishing returns, that there is a limit to the extent to which we can raise prices against the consumer, even in a partial monopoly of this character. There comes a time when people just will not travel or have


their goods carried in that way. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick)—I missed a part of his speech because I was refuelling myself at that stage of the proceedings—said something which cheered me up very much. He said, "Let us take some part of the vast profit credited to the Treasury during the war for the running of the railways and plough it back into the industry now." We, who have heard so often of the terrible losses made during that period, are heartened to hear that that profit should be called in aid to save the Government from their present trouble. I do not altogether agree with his conclusion, but I like the manner of his speech.

Mr. Poole: Mr. Poole rose——

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have not time to give way now. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr Champion), spent some part of his time referring to the manpower situation in this industry. I had intended, although I have not the time now, to go into that matter in some detail. May I say that I do not think that these global totals of the number of men in the industry and the number which it is losing or getting each year mean very much. It is the men that matter—the train crews, the signallers, shunters, and the administrative staff. We may have too many men in some things and far too few in others. I would have developed the point further, but I content myself by saying that I have not seen any authoritative statement anywhere which gives me a clear picture whether there are too many or too few men in the railway industry today. I do not think that anyone will know whether there are until we can get a thorough examination of the position and find out where these shortages do really exist in this industry.

Mr. Monslow: I intimated in my speech that there was a shortage of locomotive firemen in the large industrial centres of this country. I also indicated that the permanent way staff is depleted even with danger to safety.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I rather agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly what I was saying. There are too many people in some places and not enough in others.

I did not agree with the final remark of the hon. Member, who said that it was too early to set up an inquiry. What have we to have before we set up an inquiry? They have been there for four years and there is an accumulated loss of £50 million. What sort of figure do the losses have to amount to before we get down to having a look at the position? Have we to wait seven years before there is any inquiry? I am sorry that I had to depart from the hon. Member there, because with the first part of his speech I found myself largely in agreement.
I think that the House will agree, whatever the merits or demerits of the 10 per cent. increase, that it is a matter which has very wide repercussions throughout the length and breadth of the country. Every industrialist who is trying to keep his prices down—and I hope hon. Members will agree that some industrialists do try to keep their prices down—is bound to be dramatically affected by an increase in transport costs of this character. It applies to everything. It applies to the raw materials going into the factories and to the finished product coming out. It affects not only the industrialist but also the consumer, and if there is one thing that is causing more heart searching than anything else among all parties and in the country, it is the steadily rising cost of living.
This charge goes on everything that moves from the producer to the wholesaler, from the wholesaler to the retailer and, in some cases, from the retailer to the consumer. It is an accumulated charge. If we wanted to select one particular increase which would have a more dramatic effect than any other in forcing up prices it would be to put up transport charges. All those in industry and transport should try to avoid passing on the increased costs to someone else. We all ought to try it, and even the much maligned Parliamentary Secretary, who said the other day that "In his official capacity"—this was a sort of ex cathedra statement; it was at a lunch of the Institute of Traffic Administration, and so it was a serious occasion—
I must confess to being seriously disturbed at the readiness with which those who are responsible for traffic so willingly and readily pass the increased costs on to the consumer.
Then why does he do it? It really is extraordinary to come along and complain and then to do the very thing oneself.
It is not only the industrialists and the consumers who are concerned, but also the railwaymen themselves. They are serving in an industry in which in many cases their fathers and sometimes their grandfathers before them have served. This is a great traditional industry. They can regard this steady increase in the freight rates, and other matters which are in our minds but must not be in our mouths within the rules of order, with the same disquiet as the hon. Member for Nottingham, East, knowing that there are bound to be diminishing returns and knowing that the Court of Inquiry pointed out that these steady increases in the charges on freight of all kinds are not in themselves the answer to the difficulties in which the transport industry finds itself.
I wanted to say something about the nature of this particular flat-rate increase. One of the principal ideas, if not the principal idea, of the Transport Act, 1947, was the introduction of a comprehensive road-rail charges scheme. The idea behind it at that time was that this delicate mechanism could be so framed as to influence traffic into what might be regarded as the most economic and effective channels. The decision was not to be made in the old way of thousands of people making their own choice, but the principles were to be decided at the centre. Whatever the merits of that idea—and I never thought that there were very many—it must be becoming very nebulous. It is disappearing into the mists of time. It started off with a promise in 1947 that it would be introduced in two years' time. Then we were told we were going to have a scheme in 1951 and now we are told that the earliest time at which it might arrive will be in 1954. What is going to happen between now and 1954? We must not overstress the gravity of our time, but I do not think the greatest optimist would say that it was likely to be a period marked by great economic stability.
What are we going to do in the railway industry between now and that date? We have had one demand already, which resulted in an increase of 16⅔ per cent. last May. We have now got another of 10 per cent., making a total of 28⅓ per cent. within a period of 12 months. Is this the right hon. Gentleman's last territorial demand? I very much doubt whether it is. Everybody knows perfectly well that, in fact, what will be happening is that periodically they will come along

and demand another flate-rate increase. Have the Transport Commission no idea beyond a flat-rate increase? They have had it for four years. It is what the psychiatrists call a "phobia." Have the Transport Commission no other idea than a charges scheme? Have they no ideas about giving an advantage to full wagons rather than half-empty wagons, or the other things mentioned in the charges scheme published the other day? Are they going to ask time after time for another 10 per cent.?
This type of increase bears most heavily on the people least able to bear it. It hits the especial areas the very places where industrialists and, indeed, people of all parties have encourage the introduction of branch factories in order to diversify industry in a particular area. Then the Commission come along and slap on an increase of 28⅓ per cent. in the transport charges. No more damaging thing could be done to the principle of diversifying industry. It hits the far north of Scotland, Wales, and the distant areas in a manner wholly different from the way in which it hits the more closely urbanised centres and industrial districts. Yet no other suggestion is being made, and so far the Government have refused any kind of inquiry or an alternative method to get this money.
What will happen when we get to 1954? Between now and then there is going to be a great inquiry. I do not know how many hon. Members have seen a charges scheme, but it is a formidable, massive thing. It shows exactly how to charge between oranges and lemons, coal and light merchandise, cattle and one hundred and one other considerations. In the next five years, if the Commission's funds last that long, lawyers are going to debate this charges scheme, and at the end of it, after all this consideration, a delicately balanced mechanism is going to be produced for our benefit.
Then the tribunal considering it will wake up and notice that there are some differences in the world of 1954 compared with 1951. They will find that in the period railway rates have gone up, and for the purposes of their scheme it will be necessary to bring road rates up by the same amount. Thus, on top of this delicate mechanism which they have worked out, they will have to impose a crazy superstructure of a flat-rate


increase. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course they will; otherwise they will go bankrupt within three weeks. On top they will have to impose the flat-rate increases which have taken place in the interval. It is a very ham-handed way of running a transport system.
I have no more time. I should have liked to develop a large number of other points. What I do want to emphasise to the right hon. Gentleman is this. We are not here to make his job more difficult. Indeed, he can have his Regulations right now and at this moment if he wishes. He can have them now and need not even make a speech for them. He can even have them free. He can have his Regulations just as he likes, on the one condition that we can have an inquiry into the range of matters to which I and my hon. Friends have referred and which we, and in many cases hon. Gentlemen opposite, think are proper matters for inquiry and matters in which economies could be made to help the job of the men working on the railways. That is a fair request which would meet with some support, outside the ranks of the Conservative Party, among all those who have the interests of this great industry at heart. It is a request which the right hon. Gentleman would be wise to concede tonight.

9.27 p.m.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): I do not consider that the contribution of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) has added much to the debate. This is the most encouraging debate on rail transport that we have had since nationalisation. We had the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe), which was followed by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris); and I should particularly like to associate myself with the congratulations which have been offered to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton), whose speech has been generally recognised as a remarkable contribution to our debate. Although not very many hon. Members have spoken, all the speeches that we have had have represented thoughtful contributions to the problem.
I want to say without any qualification that my mind is not closed to the views which have been expressed, but I think I am entitled to say that no Minister can stand at this Box and just commit himself to a vague and general inquiry into this complex problem. The theme of the debate has not been upon the merits or demerits of the proposal before the House. Quite rightly, the larger problem of the future of the railway industry of this country has come into our survey, and as that has been the general theme, I propose to reply to it towards the end of my comments. I feel that we have now in the post-war period seriously considered the problem of British railways, and I shall endeavour to give a less gloomy picture than the one generally in the minds of hon. Members when dealing with this subject.
Before I do that, I want to disconnect it from the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), who used it in a limited way when arguing that the wartime profits or surplus contributed to the Budget, should now be ploughed back into industry. That point was taken up by the hon. Member for Monmouth. It is no use discussing the ploughing back of the £124 million made during the war because that money was spent in the prosecution of the war. It raises an entirely different financial issue from that which my hon. Friend was submitting. I want to get it in its proper perspective in considering the financial position of British Railways over the last 11 years.
When looking at the problem of the railways in the post-war period, it is generally considered that the position of that industry in this country is a fairly hopeless one. But I have never admitted that. I agree that the circumstances in the post-war period have been particularly onerous for any form of management to handle, whether it is operating under a system of free enterprise or under the principle of public enterprise. I do not attempt to deny that. But because the post-war period is difficult, my submission, gained from experience at the Ministry of Transport, is that it cannot be disconnected from the circumstances of the past 10 years.
I find that in a period of 11 years from 1939 to the end of 1951, the railways of


this country have more than paid their way. I want to give the House the figures. First, during the war, the arrangement made by the Government with the railway companies was a fairly generous one. It represented a payment of £43½ million a year of their annual rent, which met all their obligations. That meant that during the war period a sum of £362 million was taken by the railway companies out of their earnings. Over and above that, a surplus of £124½ million was paid by the railways into the Treasury, and this assisted in the prosecution of the war.
Those sums were earned at a price level that hardly altered during the whole process of the war. In the post-war period—a difficult one of adjustment of railway finance to the prevailing high level of prices—the annual payment of interest at 3 per cent. on the amount of railway stock issued by the British Transport Commission has averaged £29 million over the last three years—a sum of £87 million in all paid in interest. The Transport Tribunal state in their report, in which they justified this 10 per cent. increase, that whereas at the end of 1950, while the accumulated deficiency on British Transport was £40 million, the accumulated deficiency on the railways side was £51 million.
Even if we take the last three years, British Railways have earned £87 million in interest, and have a deficit today of £51 million. In fairness to everyone engaged in the railway industry, Parliament ought to acknowledge that, whereas under the previous accounts the profits were treated as profits, under nationalisation the interest on stock is treated as a cost item. No one can examine the figures which I have given and then say that British Railways are in a bankrupt condition or that the position for the future is hopeless. This industry has a great record. Its engineers, its operators and its personnel compare well with those of other industries in our country. I was glad tonight to note that an increasing number of hon. Members in all parts of the House are beginning to recognise this fact.
Let me take the question of the burden of railway freight charges. I do not dispute—who would—that any increase in the cost of any service, any article or commodity adds to the difficulties of industry; but I assert without fear of

contradiction that transport and railway charges have not been the motivating factor which has increased the price level in this country. Every increase in railway charges has followed a heavy and general rise in commodity prices.
In not one instance in the past 11 years have railway rates stimulated increases in prices. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I did not attempt to evade the issue. It does not matter at what stage any increase comes on a service, an article or a commodity, it immediately reacts on the price level. I did not attempt to evade that point. I state that the transport increases have not been the primary motivating power which has raised the price level of industry generally. I shall not go beyond that, and I do not want to exaggerate the position.
Twelve months ago when we discussed a similar problem—namely, the then proposed increase of 16⅔ per cent. in freight rates, suggested after exhaustive examination by the Transport Tribunal in their consultative capacity—I listened to all the same arguments. I did not belittle them or dismiss them. I did not argue that there is no substance in them. What I am entitled to say is that all the facts of the last 12 months have demonstrated that industry generally had no greater difficulty in adjusting itself to the increase of 16⅔ per cent. of 12 months ago, than it had difficulty in adjusting itself to other increases, whether they came from the Budget or from normal increases in cost.
I noted with particular interest that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, during his Budget statement, said:
There is no doubt that the level of company profits has recently been increasing rapidly…they are estimated to have increased in 1950 by nearly 14 per cent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1951; Vol. 486, c. 854.]
If the profits and surpluses of general industry in that period have increased by 14 per cent., my contention is that the increase of 16⅔ per cent.—though I admit it is a contributory factor—by itself did not inflict any serious injury on British industry. No hon. Member has proved or attempted to prove that a single industry or commodity has been injured or made dearer as a result of transport charges. [HON. MEMBERS: "Coal."] As a matter of fact, the higher price of coal to the railways preceded the increase


in the transport charges. [Interruption.] Hon. Members really cannot ride off on this circular problem. I was not unfamiliar with rising prices long before I was in Parliament, and I know that hon. Members who come into these debates at a late hour find a difficulty in connecting the arguments and facts with previous discussions which we have had, because they have not listened to the general trend of argument that took place.
Now let me deal with the efficiency problem, because, after all, the argument for a special inquiry presupposes that the railway industry of this country is inefficient, and yet no one has really pledged his reputation by making any such statement. Let me give the staff position, first of all. When I took over the Ministry of Transport, and the four railway general managers were a joint executive functioning for the Government, the railway staff, like the staffs of many other industries, had grown out of all proportion by the absorption of wartime replacement labour. Just prior to nationalisation, an agreement for a 44-hour week, in place of the higher number of hours, was negotiated, and, therefore, by August, 1948, the railway staffs reached their peak figure of 661,000. Since the Railway Executive has had charge of this situation, the reduction has amounted to 62,000. There are staff vacancies of about 20,000.
I think it is time the House had the correct figures of railway staffs. Of course, the housing difficulty prevents, to a very large extent, a good many changes that would take place if the Railway Executive were able to move their staff about, even in their own railway houses, but although the railway companies in the past had over 50,000 houses for the use of their staff, the conditions today have immobilised a lot of that property, and there is not the fluidity which would assist this staff problem. Therefore, it is uneven, and we have surpluses in some directions and deficiencies in others; but if we delete the 20,000 staff vacancies and assume that they could be filled, nevertheless there would be a net reduction in just over two years of 42,000 in railway staffs.
Let me now take the branch lines. We have heard a lot tonight about the closing

of branch lines. As a Minister I have always resisted pressure to make the Minister responsible for the management problems of these nationalised industries, and I have been very gratified tonight to find one hon. Member after another opposite arguing that the politician should not interfere with these economic services which are publicly owned. Yet I have been submitted to continuous pressure from hon. Members opposite to enter into and to deal with the management problems of the railways, a pressure which I have steadily resisted. What do I find? I find that the Railway Executive have closed 113 branch lines, and directly a proposal——

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Not branch lines, but 113 miles.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, 113 branch lines, although a lot of them are very small. Hon. Members should not assume that this is a very substantial contribution. It is not, but it is one of those instances about which hon. Members talk a great deal and which does not mean much in the end. That is the point I am trying to make.
They have closed 113 branch lines, but that only represents a net saving of just over £400,000 a year. Whenever it is proposed to close a branch line, along comes the Member of Parliament representing that constituency, very often in the preliminary stages of negotiation, to protest against the line being closed. Therefore, hon. Members opposite had better be careful when they make speeches about the importance of doing something in this direction. Further, 142 stations have been closed by the Railway Executive, but, again, whilst that process is going on, it does not really represent any substantial contribution to the overall problem.
I will now deal with the problem and the financial consequences of pilfering. I think it was the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) who raised this question. In 1948, the payments for pilferage claims amounted to £2,778,367. In 1950, two years later, those payments were reduced to £1,406,835, and in that period, of course, the prices of the articles stolen had gone up, so that it really means that the cost of claims for pilferage were cut by more than half.

Mr. Shepherd: In order that the House may properly appreciate this problem, would the Minister give the figure for pilferage in 1938?

Mr. Barnes: It was much less, and the hon. Member is just anticipating the point I was going to make. That represents a considerable improvement in a very regrettable situation.

Earl Winterton: Would the right hon. Gentleman answer one question of great interest? Can he explain why it was that people stole so much less in the bad old days of Tory misrule, when they were all starving and had no shoes to wear?

Mr. Barnes: What I am concerned with at the moment is not so much to deal with—[Interruption.] The noble Lord has asked a question, and I shall be glad if he will please listen to the reply. What I am concerned with here is not the moral issues but the question of efficiency which has been stressed to me and about which I consider I must reply. If the railway administration have reduced this figure by approximately 50 per cent., that is a clear indication of improved administration in matters of this description. I was going to say that a situation of this kind cannot be defended in any public service. When the public place their goods in the charge of the Post Office, the railway service or any other public service, it is the duty of that service to deliver those goods without any breakages or damage or without their being stolen.

Mr. Poole: Is my right hon. Friend speaking here of pilferage only or of loss and pilferage? They are very distinct.

Mr. Barnes: I think the figures I have given cover pilferage primarily. I do not think they cover loss, but I am not absolutely sure. I have the figures here as "pilferage claims."
I recognise it is perhaps rather difficult to deal seriatim with all the points that are of the utmost importance if a fair judgment is to be formed of the Railway Executive in the task they have undertaken during the last three years. It is estimated that the measures taken in connection with the laying of rails and other mechanised processes on the permanent

way will represent a saving of approximately £·5 million a year. I am dealing with these matters seriatim to prove that the administration of the railways has been carefully directed towards economies.
I come now to the question of an expert inquiry. What did the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby mean when he asked me to agree to an expert inquiry? I assure him my mind is not closed to a matter of this kind. I want to inform the House that on receipt of the communication recently from the Federation of British Industries and the British Chambers of Commerce, I invited the Federation of British Industries to send representatives to meet me to discuss this problem.
When I review the circumstances in which railway charges and administration have to be considered I find that we have had the court of inquiry to which the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby referred. That was a Ministry of Labour inquiry. It was a normal piece of industrial machinery more or less similar to that which applies in other industries. It followed the normal staff negotiations. After that court of inquiry which examined all the facts the railway unions refused to accept the findings. It is not unusual in matters of this description. I do not want to justify it.
I do not feel called upon to defend the action of any particular body in these negotiations, but it is not unusual for unions after processes of that description to find conditions among their men such as to make it difficult for them to accept a settlement. On the other hand, individuals might criticise the action of officials of the union at certain stages of those negotiations. But it was an inquiry and eventually we had a settlement.
I want to make it perfectly plain that the Government did not give a direction to anybody to settle in any specific way or on any specific terms. That is a great exaggeration of what actually took place. Of course, no one wanted a general railway stoppage. We all recognise that it has been the go-slow methods and the strikes that have broken out in many of the marshalling yards which have led to a great deal of dislocation and congestion in freight movements. There was no specific direction. In circumstances of


that kind no one wanted a general transport strike. When the British Transport Commission submitted their claim to me I followed the normal procedure and we had an inquiry into the situation by the Transport Tribunal. The Transport Tribunal in their report to me recognised one main consideration, and that was that we could not permit this accumulated loss to grow until it imperilled the main charges scheme.
It has been proposed that I should agree to an expert committee. An expert committee to do what? An expert in railway matters means an expert railwayman. A little while ago I had a request from the Australian Government that the recently appointed Chairman of the British Railway Executive should go to Australia to inquire into the Victoria railway system and advise them on that matter. If the Australian Government invite a British railwayman to go there to advise them on a matter of that importance, I think one can claim that that individual is a railway expert.
What is the point of bringing in another expert to judge the work of an already existing expert? Let me put another point. Take Mr. Frank Pope whom I have just appointed to the British Transport Commission. He was one of the vice-presidents of the Midland Railway, I believe, and he went to Northern Ireland to advise upon and co-ordinate the transport system of Northern Ireland. He has now been appointed to the British Transport Commission.
As I have already said, I welcome as I am sure the British Transport Commission and the Railway Executive will welcome, all the assistance they can get from this House. I propose to discuss this with the Federation of British Industries, the British Transport Commission and the Railway Executive. But although I appreciate the point of view that is submitted from the opposite side of the House, I cannot accept a vague general request to appoint an expert committee when one Member says it is to deal with policy, another Member says it is to deal with efficiency, and another Member says it is to deal with out-of-date legal obligations imposed upon the railways. Does anyone mean to tell me that a Minister standing at this Box dealing with an important industry of this kind would

commit himself to some vague general request for an expert committee, unless its terms of reference, the conditions and the subject were clearly understood and defined?
All I can say tonight is that I recognise the importance of a general and growing point of view in this House on this matter. This is a matter which has been encouraging to me, and although I cannot pledge myself here, because obviously it requires further consideration, I hope that the Division on the question of the 10 per cent. will not be pressed. I believe that if hon. Members will agree to that they will perform a very good service to the railways of this country.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I regret that I rise at this unusual time, but I do so because I wish to speak on a personal matter. Today I listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for West Derby (Sir D. Maxwell Fyfe) and also to the very admirable maiden speech, if I may say so, of the hon. and learned Member for Bristol, West (Sir W. Monckton). Then, like the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft), I was obliged to leave the House on certain matters. To my surprise, I learned from one of my hon. Friends that in my absence and without any notice an attack had been made upon me by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd) who said, "The hon. and learned Member for Crewe is never in his place when this House is discussing railway matters."
That is an incorrect statement. I have had the miserable experience of taking home speeches on railway matters which I have not been able to deliver because so many of my hon. Friends are so well acquainted with matters of this kind that the words of a mere lawyer have not been welcomed. I say no more. The interests of my constituents in Crewe are frequently represented in the House and to the Minister, and those of my hon. Friends on this side of the House who represent railway interests know that all my constituents get my undivided attention.

Question put,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Regulations, dated 6th April 1951, entitled the Railways (Additional Charges) (Amendment) Regulations, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 601), a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th April, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 293; Noes, 297.

Division No. 78.]
AYES
[10.5 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Fletcher, Walter (Bury)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Alport, C. J. M.
Fort, R.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Foster, John
Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
McAdden, S. J.


Arbuthnot, John
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
McCallum, Major D.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir David Maxwell
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gage, C. H.
Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)


Astor, Hon. M. L.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Baker, P. A. D.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McKibbin, A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Gammans, L. D.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Baldwin, A. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)
Maclean, Fitzroy


Banks, Col. C.
Gates, Maj. E. E.
MacLeod, lain (Enfield, W.)


Baxter, A. B.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Beamish, Major Tufton
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon Harold (Bromley)


Bell, R. M.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Macpherson, Major Niall (Dumfries)


Bennett, Sir Peter (Edgbaston)
Grimond, J.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Manningham-Buller, R. E.


Bennett, William (Woodside)
Grimston, Robert (Westbury)
Marlowe, A. A. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)
Harden, J. R. E.
Marples, A. E.


Birch, Nigel
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Black, C. W.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, Sidney (Sutton)


Boles, Lt. Col. D. C. (Wells)
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Maude, Angus (Ealing, S.)


Boothby, R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maude, John (Exeter)


Bossom, A. C.
Harvie-Watt, Sir G. S.
Maudling, R.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Hay, John
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Mellor, Sir John


Boyle, Sir Edward
Headlam, Lieut.- Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.
Molson, A. H. E.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. B.
Heald, Lionel
Monckton, Sir Walter


Braine, B. R.
Heath, Edward
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nabarro, G.


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Nicholls, Harmar


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, G.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hollis, M. C.
Noble, Comdr, A. H. P.


Burden, Squadron Leader F. A.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Lord John
Nutting, Anthony


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Hopkinson, H. L. D.'A.
Oakshott, H. D.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.
Odey, G. W.


Channon, H.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Clyde, J. L.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. Robert (Southport)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Colegate, A.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Osborne, C.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Peake, Rt. Hon O.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert (Ilford, S.)
Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Corbett, Lt.-Col. Uvedale (Ludlow)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Pickthorn, K.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Colonel James (Glasgow)
Pitman, I. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Powell, J. Enoch


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hylton-Foster, H. B.
Prescott, S.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jeffreys, General Sir George
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crouch, R. F.
Jennings, R.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Crowder, Capt. John (Finchley)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Raikes, H. V.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Cundiff, F. W.
Joynson Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Redmayne, M.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Kaberry, D.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Davidson, Viscountess
Keeling, E. H.
Renton, D. L. M.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (M'ntg'mery)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Davies, Nigel (Epping)
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col W. H.
Roberts, Major Peter (Heeley)


de Chair, Somerset
Lambert, Hon. G.
Robertson, Sir David (Caithness)


De la Bère, R.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Deedes, W. F.
Langford-Holt, J.
Robson-Brown, W.


Digby, S. W.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Leather, E. H. C.
Roper, Sir Harold


Donner, P. W.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Russell, R. S.


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Martin
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir Thomas (Richmond)
Linstead, H. N.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Llewellyn, D.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Dunglass, Lord
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (King's Norton)
Savory, Prof. D. L.


Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Scott, Donald


Eccles, D. M.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Shepherd, William


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)


Erroll, F. J.
Low, A. R. W.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)







Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Teeling, W.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Snadden, W. McN
Teevan, T. L.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Soames, Capt. C.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Spearman, A. C. M.
Thompson, Kenneth Pugh (Walton)
Watkinson, H.


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Thompson, R. H. M. (Croydon, W.)
Webbe, Sir Harold


Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Thorneycroft, Peter (Monmouth)
Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard (N. Fylde)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Stevens, G. P.
Thorp, Brig. R. A. F.
Williams, Charles (Torquay)


Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Tilney, John
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Touche, G. C.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Turner, H. F. L.
Wills, G.


Storey, S.
Turton, R. H.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earr


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vane, W. M. F.
Wood, Hon. R.


Studholme, H. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
York, C.


Summers, G. S.
Vosper, D. F.



Sutcliffe, H.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (Marylebone)
Mr. Drewe and


Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Walker-Smith, D. C.
Brigadier Mackeson.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)


Adams, Richard
Deer, G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Albu, A. H.
Delargy, H. J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Diamond, J.
Hughes, Moelwyn (Islington N.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Dodds, N. N.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Donnelly, D.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Awbery, S. S.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)


Ayles, W. H.
Dye, S.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Janner, B.


Baird, J.
Edelman, M.
Jay, D. P. T.


Balfour, A.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jeger, George (Goole)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Bartley, P.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Jenkins, R. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Benn, Wedgwood
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Benson, G.
Ewart, R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)


Beswick, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Field, Capt. W. J.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bing, G. H. C.
Finch, H. J.
Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)


Blenkinsop, A.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Keenan, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Follick, M.
Kenyon, C.


Boardman, H.
Foot, M. M.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Booth, A.
Forman, J. C.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bottomley, A. G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.


Bowden, H. W.
Freeman, John (Watford)
Kinley, J.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Lang, Gordon


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Brooks, T. J. (Nor[...]mton)
Gibson, C. W.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Gilzean, A.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Brown, George (Belper)
Glanville, James (Consett)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Gooch, E. G.
Lewis, John (Bolton W.)


Burke, W. A.
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Burton, Miss E.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)
Logan, D. G.


Callaghan, L. J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Longden, Fred (Small Heath)


Carmichael, J.
Grey, C. F.
MacColl, J. E.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McGovern, J.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
McInnes, J.


Clunie, J.
Gunter, R. J.
Mack, J. D.


Cocks, F. S.
Hale, Joseph (Rochdale)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Coldrick, W.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
McLeavy, F.


Collick, P.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Collindridge, F.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.


Cook, T. F.
Hamilton, W. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Cooper, Geoffrey (Middlesbrough, W.)
Hannan, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Cooper, John (Deptford)
Hardman, D. R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda (Peckham)
Hardy, E. A.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Cove, W. G.
Hargreaves, A.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, J.
Manuel, A. C.


Crawley, A.
Hastings, S.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Crosland, C. A. R.
Hayman, F. H.
Mathers, Rt. Hon. G.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Mellish, R. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Messer, F.


Dairies, P.
Hobson, C. R.
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Holman, P.
Mikardo, Ian


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Mitchison, G. R.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Houghton, D.
Moeran, E. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hoy, J.
Monslow, W.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hubbard, T.
Moody, A. S.







Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Ungoed-Thomas, A. L.


Morley, R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Usborne, H.


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Vernon, W. F.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Mort, D. L.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Wallace, H. W.


Moyle, A.
Royle, C.
Watkins, T. E.


Mulley, F. W.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Murray, J. T.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir Hartley
Weitzman, D.


Nally, W.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Neal, Harold (Borsever)
Shurmer, P. L. E.
Wells, William (Walsall)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
West, D. G.


O'Brien, T.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Oldfield, W. H.
Simmons, C. J.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Oliver, G. H.
Slater, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Orbach, M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Padley, W. E.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)



Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)
Snow, J. W.
Wigg, G.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Panned, T. C.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wilkes, L.


Pargiter, G. A.
Steele, T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Parker, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland)


Paton, J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Willey, Octavius (Cleveland)


Peart, T. F.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, David (Neath)


Poole, C.
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Popplewell, E.
Summsrskill, Rt. Hon. Edith
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Porter, G.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'lly)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


Proctor, W. T.
Taylor, Robert (Morpeth)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Pryde, D. J.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Winterbottom, Ian (Nottingham, C.)


Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Rankin, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Wise, F. J.


Rees, Mrs. D.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Reeves. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Woods, Rev. G. S.


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Thurtle, Ernest
Wyatt, W. L.


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Timmons, J.
Yates, V. F.


Rhodes, H.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.
Younger, Hon. K.


Richards, R.
Tomney, F.



Roberts, A.
Turner-Samuels, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Pearson and Mr. Sparks.

PURCHASE TAX (HAIRDRESSING GOODS)

10.14 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): I beg to move,
That the Purchase Tax (No. 4) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 459), dated 16th March, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th March, be approved.
The purpose of this Purchase Tax Order is, first, to stop avoidance of Purchase Tax on certain hairdressing goods, and, second, to remove some anomalies which have resulted from a decision by independent counsel. The Purchase Tax Schedule in the 1948 Finance Act sought to make two broad distinctions in the treatment of hair-dressing goods. First, it taxed at the lower rate of 33⅓ per cent. what in effect were the tools of trade of the hairdressers, while leaving at 100 per cent. corresponding equipment used by the individual in the home. Second, various common necessities, such as brushes, combs, hairpins, etc., were taxed at only 33⅓ per cent., while more luxury toilet preparations and perfumery were taxed at the higher rate of 100 per cent.
These distinctions, in their original form, have become unworkable, for two reasons. First, the hairdressing trade has

been avoiding tax on permanent waving lotions, and other beauty preparations, which should pay at 100 per cent. On the one hand, some of the basic chemicals for these lotions have been sold ready mixed, leaving the hairdresser to add one common chemical, which, of course, was free of tax, with the result that the tax was avoided altogether. At the same time, complete lotions have been sold with a few curlers as a permanent waving outfit for professional use—with the result that the whole outfit was taxed only at 33⅓ per cent and the lotions thereby escaped the 100 per cent. tax.
Second, an anomaly has sprung up between home permanent waving outfits, which are known, I believe, as "home perms," and other types of beauty aids used for the hair.
All these were supposed, under the 1948 Act, to be taxed, as, indeed, would appear logical, at the 100 per cent. rate. In the summer of 1950, however, a dispute about the rate for these "home perms" was submitted to independent counsel, under the usual procedure, and it was held that they were not toilet goods, and must be charged at the same rate as the professional hairdressers' outfits,


namely 33⅓ per cent. That, in turn, raised a new, and rather glaring anomaly between "home perms" and the other toilet preparations used in the home, which, of course, remained at 100 per cent.
What we are seeking to do by the present Order is to remove that anomaly by raising the tax on all cold waving outfits from 33⅓ per cent. to 100 per cent., thereby accepting counsel's opinion that the distinction between the home and the professional outfit is untenable in practice, and also putting all the less essential types of home toilet goods, that is to say, things other than brushes, combs, etc., at 100 per cent. as was originally intended.
Secondly, the chemical "bases" used for mixture into hairdressing lotions are being raised from being untaxed, as they were before, to the 100 per cent. rate, so as to stop avoidance of the tax by the process of mixing to which I have referred. Thirdly, equipment necessary for hot permanent wave processes—as being distinguishable as tools of trade and not used in the home—are left at the 33⅓ per cent. rate.
In effect, therefore, we simply seek by the Order, while stopping the present avoidance which is, I think, unsettling to everyone, and while taking account of counsel's view that the home and professional cold waving equipment cannot be distinguished for tax purposes, to preserve the two original distinctions intended by the 1948 Schedule. On the one hand, the hairdresser's tools of trade, so far as they can be defined, are kept at 33⅓ per cent. On the other hand, the home outfits, such as toilet preparations, cosmetics and so on, are left at 100 per cent., while brushes, combs, hairpins, etc., stay at 33⅓ per cent. That, within the present structure of the Purchase Tax, seems to us to be the most straightforward and effective way out of the difficulty.

Sir John Mellor: Why is all this not in the Finance Bill?

10.21 p.m.

Mr. P. B. Lucas: I wish to intervene for a moment to record my protest against this Order. I am specially concerned, as are some of my hon. Friends, with its effect

upon those who use home permanent wave outfits. I consider that the increase to 100 per cent. discriminates particularly against this type of waving device. I do not think it is sufficiently widely appreciated that these kits have been sold in quantities in this country only since 1948. Since then, I believe, their popularity has greatly increased, and it is now true to say that hundreds of thousands of women are using them.
It may be said that they are a luxury, but I consider they are a necessary luxury. I take the view that in these days a good appearance is necessary to boost a woman's morale. Nowadays women lay great store by their hair styles and I am sure all hon. Members are agreed that a pretty head of hair has many attractions. Some women are by nature more fortunate than others and do not have to have recourse to any home or professional treatment. But there are those who are not so fortunate who are compelled to employ these artificial aids.
Many women cannot afford either the time or the money to use a professional hairdresser, as indeed they would like to. Two or three guineas a time every few months is too much for many of them. It is for this reason that women are, in increasing numbers, turning to these home permanent waving kits. The majority are in the lower income groups, and this increase of 66⅔ per cent. is going to represent a very real burden indeed upon them. These are the women to whom a few shillings increase in price makes the most difference, and they are the people whom we wish to hurt the least. They have very little leisure. They are in many cases housewives who are kept fully occupied at home and have not the time to go to the hairdresser, even if they have the money to spend. They are compelled, therefore, to resort to these artificial aids, which they use in their homes while doing their work.
I wonder if it is appreciated what effect this increase has upon the price of these kits. I should like to quote an instance of a manufacturer in my constituency. The present retail price of the outfit manufactured by this firm is 12s. 7d. without tax, and with the 100 per cent. Purchase Tax the price becomes £1 1s. Thus the woman who purchases this outfit pays the Exchequer 8s. 5d. by way of Purchase Tax for the privilege of using


it. The present retail price of a refill is 5s. 8d. without tax, and the increase in price imposed by this Order brings it to 9s. 6d. This means that a complete outfit now costs 30s. 6d., of which 12s. 3d. is Purchase Tax. I say this is too much.
It seems to be curious in these days when we are exhorted to save fuel that the burden of this tax should fall upon the cold waving process rather than upon that which relies on heat. It is quite true that the hot waving process uses little fuel but it uses something, while the cold wave uses nothing. It is surprising that this tax should discriminate against a device designed to save fuel.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are concerned with the preservation of feminine beauty, and I hope that it will be appreciated that by imposing this additional tax the Government are placing an unnecessary burden upon those who are least able to bear it, namely, the hard-pressed, harassed British housewife. I hope that it will also be appreciated that this tax will act as a deterrent to the manufacturers who are providing such service to the public in producing these outfits.
In view of these considerations I trust the hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter, and see whether the tax on home permanent waving sets cannot be left at 33⅓ per cent. instead of being increased to this prohibitive figure.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Ian Harvey: It is only right for me to declare my interest in this particular matter. I am not a user of the cold permanent waving set, nor, I regret to say, have I ever been able to persuade my wife to use it, though it would achieve a considerable saving in the home budget. I have a close relationship with one of the organisations responsible for the production of what is known as a "Toni" permanent waving set. The Financial Secretary, in moving this order, made it clear that the main object was to clarify a so-called anomaly, but I have failed to detect in what has been said by him any very clear anomaly.
I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Lucas) that here

is a new social habit, and it will not be altogether unwelcome to hon. Members opposite, who are continuously declaring themselves for revolutionary customs, even if this one was brought to us by the United States of America, which were not altogether popular in our discussions today. This habit has enabled many women in straitened circumstances, due to the impositions of the hon. Gentleman and his advisers, to do what they regard as an essential task in their normal life.
The Financial Secretary referred to a judicial opinion. That judicial opinion was very clear in slating that the use of these cold permanent waving sets was not a luxury but a reasonable habit in which people could be expected to indulge. Therefore, I am bound to ask what is the real purpose of the Order. The hon. Gentleman has told us that it is to clear up an anomaly, but when a new habit is brought into effect, anything which is connected with it does not constitute an anomaly. The argument about anomalies is nothing more nor less than a desire on the part of the bureaucratic mind, of which we have had rather too much recently, to put things into compartments into which they would not normally fit.
If the tax is to be introduced at this rate, it must be justified either because it is disinflationary—because it is intended to stop people spending what they would normally save—or because it is revenue producing. We have heard absolutely nothing from the hon. Gentleman as to the disinflationary effect of the tax, and there is no evidence from what he has said that any material used in the kit or in its production could reasonably be used for other and better purposes, and that imposing the increased tax will stop a luxury habit.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Chiswick very clearly said, this is not a luxury habit but a normal habit. What the hon. Gentleman is doing is taxing a normal habit. Whose normal habit is it? It is clearly the habit of ladies who cannot spend time or money on more expensive waves. The hon. Gentleman, who spends a great deal of time talking about fair shares for all, is bringing in a tax which is entirely contrary in principle to that attitude. As it is not a disinflationary tax, it must be intended as a revenue-producing one.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: Or a hair-raising one.

Mr. Harvey: My right hon. Friend is a far greater authority on that subject than I am. If it is a revenue-producing tax, it appears to me to be levelled in the wrong direction.
I feel that the hon. Gentleman has produced the Order on a purely theoretical basis. He has not proved—certainly not to the satisfaction of my hon. Friends—that this is a fair tax and that it is required by the economic situation at present, and he has not proved that it is a tax which will not fall heavily upon the very people with whom he and his party have spent a great deal of time in the past and will no doubt have to spend a great deal of time in the near future—trying to convince them that they should give him their support. I ask that the matter be reviewed, because I believe that the imposition has been made without proper regard to what has been a very definite new development, and if the hon. Gentleman and his party are now proposing to close their minds to new developments, I feel that justification for many of their actions has ceased to exist.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Erroll: I thought that the Financial Secretary had a very difficult task tonight in trying to justify this Order. He evidenced his lack of ease by glossing over what this Order is really for. He sought ingeniously, as one would expect, to introduce a number of side issues of relatively minor tax changes which are brought about by the operation of this Order, and failed altogether to bring out the main point at issue, namely, whether a home permanent waving outfit should be charged at 33⅓ per cent. or at 100 per cent.
We see here the familiar reaction of Socialists towards anything new. The plain fact of the matter is that toilet requisites were taxed with 100 per cent. Purchase Tax, and permanent waving outfits supplied to hairdressers were taxed at 33⅓ per cent. Along came some enterprising manufacturers and produced a new idea. So immediately a tussle began. Should home permanent waving outfits be taxed 100 per cent. or 33⅓ per cent.? Naturally the officials of Customs and

Excise, acting in accordance with instructions received from the heads of the Department concerned, stuck out for 100 per cent. tax. Having failed in their long tussle, they returned to the political head of their Department and said, "We will still get you your 100 per cent. if you will put this Order through."
There is no justification for charging 100 per cent. tax on an article used at home when only 33⅓ per cent. is charged for the corresponding machinery when used in a shop. It is just what we find in Socialist planning throughout the country. If you go to a restaurant you can have meat off the ration, but if you want it at home you can hardly have any. If you want eggs, you can get them off the ration in a restaurant, but you cannot get them at home. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense!"] If you want your hair permanently waved, you can get it done at a hairdresser——

Mr. Mitchison: Can the hon. Gentleman explain this point about eggs? I find no difficulty in getting quite a number of eggs at home. I was not aware that they were in any way rationed or controlled. And while he is at it, will the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on something else? What is the significance of the word "permanent" in regard to a permanent wave. Does it mean permanent?

Mr. Erroll: As the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) wishes a technical explanation, the fact, as I understand it, is that the wave is permanent as long as the hair remains, but, due to the growth of the hair, the wave ultimately grows out. I hope that explanation will satisfy my hon. and learned interrupter.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: What about eggs?

Mr. Erroll: It is important to make it quite clear that there is no question of tax evasion on the lotions supplied with the kits. The home permanent waving sets were supplied as complete sets as a novelty, and a very welcome novelty, and it was right that they should be taxed at 33⅓ per cent. Admittedly the lotions were more dilute than those supplied to hairdressing establishments, but that was to avoid use which might be harmful to members of the public


not fully accustomed to stronger lotions. But there was no question of evasion or avoidance—two words which are apt to get confused in discussions in this House. I hope that the Financial Secretary, if he replies, will make it plain that there was never any question of avoidance or evasion of tax when the goods were originally introduced and as they are now being put across to the public.
It is most important that we should realise the very serious effect of this Order on these kits as regards the prices to be charged. One brand has been quoted. I should like to quote another brand because the price increases are of a rather different order. The normal price of the "Pin Up" home perm, in a complete set, is 9s. With tax at 100 per cent. that goes up to 15s., a considerable and substantial increase. The refill for the kit goes up from 7s. 6d. to 13s. 6d. again a substantial increase. The company marketing the "Pin-Up" also manufacture what they call a "Junior Kit," for what I believe to be end perms, priced at 4s. without tax and 6s. 8d. with tax.
As my hon. Friends on this side have already pointed out, a permanent wave is as essential a part of the female toilet as brushing one's teeth in the morning or wearing lipstick or any other form of personal embellishment or adornment, and it is regarded as particularly important among those who have the least time to spend on their adornment—those who work during the daytime in factory or in office.
Any new device or accessory which can enable people who must work all day to look after their toilet in their spare time is surely to be welcomed. It reduces the time lost from factory bench or office desk, lowers costs for the individuals concerned, and I should have thought it would have been welcomed by any Government, Socialist or Conservative. Therefore, is it wise or sound to increase Purchase Tax on such a simple article at the present time? I grant that it is not an essential, but it is certainly a desirable article; and if we can keep down the cost of living in this small but important way, it is worth doing.
May I turn to another important aspect of this matter? It is surely quite

intolerable that the selling price of an article which is to be sold in thousands, if not in millions, should be suddenly and arbitrarily altered by the decision of some back-room official in the Customs and Excise. An enterprising manufacturer—and it is very difficult to be enterprising these days—sets out to market a new product which he believes will be popular. He initiates a sales promotion policy—whether we agree with the methods or not is another matter—at considerable financial risk to himself and to the future of the company as a whole. He bases his sales promotion policy on a selling price which he has worked out accurately on the cost of production at the time.
All of a sudden, by some arbitrary decision, he finds the price is raised out of one level into another level altogether—from 9s. to 15s.—so that where he might have hoped to sell in millions, he now sells only in tens of thousands. All the money is lost on a sales promotion policy which is no longer applicable, all because, as I say, some back-room official decides that in this war against free enterprise the officials must always win. I know it may be a small campaign, but it is all part of this constant battle which is going on against enterprising firms.
I suggest that the attitude of the Customs and Excise in this matter has been typical and at its very worst. They asked for representations and when those representations were sent, they ignored them. Their sole reply to the representations which they themselves asked for was the curt printing of this Order. I suggest that the Government's policy has been wrong in this matter, as it is in much greater matters; but they have a chance here, as this is an Order of their own introduction and requires an affirmative Resolution, to take it away and think again.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Redmayne: I want to make only one point. The Financial Secretary said at the end of his remarks that this was the best way to deal with these anomalies within the present structure of the Purchase Tax. Those words seem to be most significant. I should like to ask the Financial Secretary whether, in fact, any change in the structure of the Purchase Tax is contemplated, and if


indeed this Order is, therefore, temporary. That seems to me to be a most important point.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has seen the recommendations of the Federation of British Industries in regard to Purchase Tax. Are we to assume that these recommendations are having more notice taken of them than we might have hoped? If that is so, it is a great mistake to put anything into the 100 per cent. class which is acknowledged by everyone in commerce and industry to be most damaging to the future of British industry and to these particular items especially. Before we leave this matter, can it be explained whether this Order is temporary, and whether we may look forward to some relaxation of the tax on luxuries in the near future, or whether what the Financial Secretary said was simply meant to raise our hopes in order to dash them to the ground later.

10.47 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I only want to ask the Financial Secretary why this method is adopted, and why the purpose of this Order could not have been achieved by putting this increase of tax into the Finance Bill. This Order was made on 16th March when, presumably the Finance Bill was regarded as fairly imminent. It may not be regarded as being quite so imminent now—I do not know. I can hardly think that there was any desperate urgency about the making of this Order. It could just as well have been left to be dealt with in the Finance Bill, which is a form of legislation which. I think, is very much preferred by this House.
I recognise that power is given to the Treasury in the Act of 1948 to legislate by Order, and that this is perfectly lawful; but I think that probably the intention of Parliament when it gave that power to legislate by Order was that it should only be done when it was not convenient to do it by a Bill. This having been done, I should like to ask this question. The Order was made on 16th March and was laid on the 9th March. It came into operation on 31st March. Why has there been this long delay before the Motion to approve the Order was brought before the House? One would have thought that,

on an Order which apparently is of some appreciable importance in view of what my hon. Friends have said, this House should have had an earlier opportunity of saying whether or not the Order should be approved. I think that these things should be brought before the House as early as possible, and it seems to me that the Treasury has delayed as long as possible in this matter.

10.49 p.m.

Mrs. Corbet: Without keeping the House very long, I should like to say that I regard "perms" not as a luxury but as a necessity. I ask the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it would be possible for him to have another look at this matter. Perhaps he does not know the sad state into which the ladies get in between their "perms." It is a nice comfortable, tight "perm" for a month or two, and then the wretched old hair will grow out. The "perm" is a little expensive, and one has to think carefully whether one can afford another for many months. During that period, one's hair is in a nasty state of ends and bits and pieces—as mine was last night until my mother did it with a "Toni perm." Now it is nice, but it has not been set.
Personally, I do not like spending a lot of money on hairdressing too often. It seems an extravagance, although I am supposed to be able to afford it. But it is everything to be able to keep oneself tidy by occasionally having recourse to these home "perms" and tidying up the ends of hair which do get into a messy state between times. Since this is a thing to which people with rather slender means are likely to have recourse, as opposed to those who can visit the hairdresser once a week in order to keep the hair nice, might I ask the Financial Secretary to have another look at the Order? A weekly visit to the hairdresser is a splendid thing for the woman who can afford it, but for those who cannot, will not my hon. Friend keep the tax as before?

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Assheton: I am sure that the House is glad to have heard one hon. Member from the other side put in a word about this matter. My hon. Friends have spoken and, I think, put the case very well; but let me say that if the


hon. Gentleman hopes to remove the anomalies which exist throughout the Purchase Tax Regulations by Order, he is going to be very busy indeed because he will have to bring in so many.
There are many instances of the tax which need attention, and those of us who study the Regulations realise, that there are many really remarkable anomalies. The argument which the Financial Secretary is making that this Order is to cure an anomaly is certainly not sufficient to justify it.
I agree with the hon. Lady who has just spoken that this is really not a luxury at all. The use of the things to which the Order refers means, I suggest, a more economical use of time and money. Furthermore, these constant changes are disturbing to trade; it is difficult for factories and works to make arrangements if they are to be subject to these constant changes. That is another point which should merit attention: this Order has some real effect on the cost of living because a rise from 9s. 0d. to 15s. 0d. is a very substantial difference, especially for the woman of slender means, as the hon. Lady has just said. I think that we ought to bear in mind that it is the woman with the least money who will suffer most; those who are better off are able to make much more use of the hairdresser's services; and for these reasons I do ask the Fnancial Secretary to reconsider this matter.
I agree with my hon. Friends on this side in regretting this Order; it is not, perhaps, a matter of the first consequence, but it is another result of the Budget, imposing itself upon the ordinary woman who wants to keep herself looking nice. There is the permanent wave costing several guineas; and there is no increase in tax for the people who can fortunately take advantage of that; but for the woman who uses this cheaper sort of treatment, the Government raises the tax.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. Jay: I will say only these few words. There seems to have been a misconception

that we are raising the tax to 100 per cent. on the home "perms" for the first time; but that is not so. What we are doing is really to put the tax back to where it stood before last summer and where it was always intended it should stand.
The hon. Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Redmayne) asked me if we had other changes in Purchase Tax in view. The answer is that we have no such proposals in view, apart from those included in the Budget speech. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) asked why we introduced this change in the form of an Order and did not include it in the Finance Bill. The reason is that this represents not a change in taxation policy but the correction of an anomaly, which arose from the difficulty about definition as a result of counsel's opinion. We have, as I think he would recognise, normally used Orders as the most convenient form of correcting anomalies. That was why we did it in this form; and the only reason it has not come before the House earlier is that, first of all, the Easter Recess intervened, and second, that other business pushed it out of the way until this evening.

Mr. Ian Harvey: The hon. Gentleman said that the anomaly arose from counsel's opinion; while I agree that the hon. Gentleman has the right to introduce this Order tonight, will he tell us in specific terms why it should be necessary to set aside an opinion that must have been based on reasoned argument.

Mr. Jay: Counsel's opinion is taken on the question of definition, but the question of policy on what should be taxed is clearly for this House, and not counsel, to decide.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
That the Purchase Tax (No. 4) Order, 1951 (S.I., 1951, No. 459), dated 16th March, 1951, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th March, be approved.

FRUIT AND VEGETABLE MARKETING

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

10.57 p.m.

Mrs. Castle: My intention in raising the question of fruit and vegetable marketing schemes is to draw attention to the further step now being taken in the direction of establishing producers marketing boards for fruit and vegetables, all of vital importance to the healthy diet of our people.
The House will remember that last July, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture brought before it for approval the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Scheme (Approval) Order, 1950, which caused a good deal of criticism and protest on this side of the House. It was objected to on two grounds—first, because it gave to a Board, consisting overwhelmingly of producers, far-reaching powers over the sale of tomatoes and cucumbers, including the power of price fixing; and secondly, although it was called a marketing board, it did nothing to improve marketing, but merely aimed to improve production by giving the Board power to determine the kinds of tomatoes and cucumbers which might be grown, and to determine the prices at which they might be sold by producers to encourage grading, packaging and processing, and generally to improve standards.
Many on this side of the House felt that even the producers' problems, let alone those of the housewives, could not be solved by marketing schemes which took no real interest in the consumer, but which went to great pains to improve the product merely to hand it over to an unreformed and anarchic system of distribution at the end of that process. Anxiety was expressed by hon. Members on this side of the House that such powers of regulation and distribution were to be given to a Board on which there sat only four Ministry nominees out of a total membership of 24.
I would agree that of the four nominees that the Minister has since appointed to the Tomato and Cucumber Board, two at any rate are well equipped to represent the consumers. I am very glad he has appointed Mrs. Wills, who was in the

last Parliament and whom we all remember as being very active on behalf of the housewife. Also, he has a very excellent trade union member in the person of Mr. Shingfield of the Transport and General Workers' Union, but even these two nominees were not sufficient to offset the objections of many of us on this side of the House to this kind of producers' marketing board.
This Order was approved last July and action under it has perforce been very small. There has been no time to do more than elect the Board, appoint a secretary and a couple of typists. The Board has not really started functioning yet because the tomato season in this country has not started and there has been no time for us to see whether our fears about the nature of the Board's activities are justified. Yet, despite the fact that these objections to the former scheme were expressed in this House and the time has not yet been sufficient to see whether these objections are valid, we are already half way through the procedure for introducing another Order involving a similar marketing scheme—this time a scheme for apples and pears.
The National Farmers' Union has drawn up and publicised this new scheme in draft form, and has submitted it to the Minister. The Minister has presented it and today is the last day for the hearing of objections to that scheme. What I am anxious to do, therefore, is to point out to the Minister that the criticisms in this House of the tomato and cucumber scheme apply equally to the scheme for apples and pears. I believe that the draft scheme drawn up by the National Farmers' Union does differ slightly in some details from the tomato and cucumber scheme. For example, it does not appear to give producers the same power to control prices.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): May I raise a very brief point of order? I should like to have your guidance, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Lady is now proceeding to deal with the apples and pears scheme, about which my right hon. Friend and myself will have certain clear judicial duties in due course, if the scheme proceeds. It will be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for me tonight to deal with that scheme if she proceeds to discuss it on the Motion


tonight, as the scheme will involve an Order before the House.

Mrs. Castle: May I point out that this is the only opportunity in this House of expressing a point of view about this scheme before the final stages are reached. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I wish to give him advice in considering all the representations made to him about the scheme. After all, he is having representations made to him from other quarters—why not from this House, in helping him to reach a decision?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles Mac Andrew): Generally speaking, I was under the impression that on the Adjournment, as long as legislation is not suggested, anything else can be discussed. This can be done without legislation.

Mr. Brown: The scheme cannot be a scheme until it comes before the House in the form of an Order from my right hon. Friend. Therefore, it clearly does involve legislation.

Mrs. Castle: This action I am discussing is action taken under the Marketing Acts of 1931, 1933 and 1949. I am not questioning these Acts, I am merely questioning the action under those Acts.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think the hon. Lady is quite in order. This Order does not mean legislation.

Mrs. Castle: Thank you. I had considered this before raising the matter so that I should not be wasting your time, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or the time of the House. One section of the apples and pears draft scheme, which the National Farmers' Union have submitted to the Minister, enables the board only to fix the minimum prices for the present. I admit that this is some improvement because there does not seem to be the same power to control the price of the product.
None the less, in its broad outline the new scheme does follow the pattern of the existing scheme for tomatoes and cucumbers, and in view of the anxiety expressed by many hon. Gentlemen over the provisions of the former scheme, I believe that more time should have been allowed to elapse before we extended this process to other products, particularly products of such vital interest to the health of the community as apples and pears. We

should have been given more time to judge whether our anxieties about this kind of producer-marketing scheme were justified or not.
This is all the more important in view of the emphasis given in the National Farmers' Union draft scheme for apples and pears to the need to control imports. That emphasis is seen over and over again in the draft scheme which I have here. Under the heading of "What the board will do," the item given priority above all others is:
An adequate regulation of imports by means of quantitative importation based on home supplies.
This is a matter of very serious importance to the housewife who, while she has no desire to deny the producer a decent livelihood, is also justifiably anxious that she should not be denied adequate supplies of apples at reasonable prices. She is not convinced that the object which the home producer regards as overwhelmingly predominant will be the right one. She remembers last Christmas when, apart from a few Canadian and American apples brought in by the Ministry of Food, the apple producers in the country obtained a complete monopoly of the home market, with the result that prices of apples during Christmas week soared to a fantastic height. Cox's Orange Pippins ranged from 2s. to 2s. 6d. a pound and the possibility of mothers putting a choice apple in the children's stocking became quite uneconomical.
Sometimes when producers have been complaining, often through the medium of hon. Gentlemen opposite, of a glut of English apples, and therefore asking for the exclusion of all foreign apples, the glut has not been of eating apples at all, but of cookers. This pressure for the restriction of foreign imports has been brought at a time when the housewife would have been willing to buy English dessert apples in the shops but could not get them, and, with no imports coming in, she has been denied eating apples altogether.
The position with regard to apples in this country is that the production of dessert and cooking apples at home is more than twice what it was before the war. The figure for 1949–50 was 537,000 tons against an average of 196,000 tons from 1937 to 1939. The imports of apples are now less than one-third of what they


were before the war. They have fallen from 303,000 tons to 88,000 tons in 1949–50.
I am glad there has been an increase in home production, because I quite agree that the flavour of the best English apple, whether eating or cooker, is unbeatable anywhere in the world. I agree that in times of heavy supply the home market has a right to a fair share of the market, but none the less there is a point beyond which the housewife should not be denied a fair choice of variety by the introduction of a home producers' monopoly in the home market. There is a point beyond which prices at home should not go, as they did last Christmas.
My plea to the Parliamentary Secretary is that if we are to have this question dealt with fairly, as between housewife and producer, between the real national interest and the sectional interest, we must set up a marketing authority which will represent all interests equally, and we shall never bring the prices of this very important fruit within the reach of the housewife, while at the same time giving the producer an economic return for his work, unless we tackle the whole process of marketing right from the auction to the shop. Partial schemes of this kind, dealing not with marketing but with production only and leaving the chaotic distribution scheme untouched, will not bring prices down—certainly not if it is a marketing scheme under the control of a board overwhelmingly representative of the producers' interest, on which, as we complained last July, other sections of the trade are not represented except by four Ministry nominees.
I appreciate that I should be out of order if I were to elaborate my idea of what a real marketing authority is, because that is not provided for under the terms of the present Marketing Acts; but I am in order in asking the Parliamentary Secretary to delay approval of this new scheme of producer-controlled marketing until we have had a chance to see that the tomato and cucumber scheme really works, until we see how it deals with imports, what sort of pressure it brings on the Ministry, and whether it is really necessary to our needs. It is a very great power we give to these boards over items of food of great importance to the housewife. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary

not to proceed with this scheme until we have had a chance of assessing the value of the first one more accurately.

Mr. Gooch: May I put one point to the hon. Lady? She has made much of the fact that she is concerned with the consumers' interest, but she must know well that the horticultural industry has been going through a very rough time for many months. Would she not agree that the grower is entitled to a fair return for money and labour?

Mrs. Castle: I repeated that three times. But clearly the interests of the housewife and the producer must go hand in hand. I say that this scheme will not solve the producers' problem, because it will not allow the actual marketing process to be dealt with. It deals with only part of it, and then hands the matter back to the chaotic distributive scheme we have at present.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Deedes: I confess that I had a little trouble in understanding what was the real nature of the hon. Lady's complaint. I understand she wants the consumers' interest watched as well as that of the producer, and in that we are in sympathy with her; but delay in introducing a marketing scheme for apples and pears will help neither the consumer nor the producer. There could be no possible reason for holding up a scheme required in the industry for the orderly marketing, sale and distribution of this fruit, which will in every way improve the situation. If we are to wait year by year while first a tomato and then an apple scheme is tried out, we shall never get fruit and vegetables marketed in an orderly way. If, as she says, she wants to see in the end a big marketing scheme embracing the whole of the fruit and horticultural industry, what could be better than pilot schemes whereby we learn as we go along?

Mrs. Castle: There is already the tomato scheme. We can learn from that.

Mr. Deedes: Let us have an apple and pear scheme as well, for apple and pear growing is a different matter and covers many different problems. The hon. Lady spoke of a home producers' monopoly. It will be news to the producers


of apples and pears that they enjoy a monopoly.

Mrs. Castle: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the open general licence for the import of apples, apart from very few Canadian apples, was not granted until after Christmas last year, and that there was an actual monopoly for the home apples in the home market during Christmas week?

Mr. Deedes: If the hon. Lady lived in a fruit-growing area she would know of the endless anxiety endured throughout the summer as to what would come in and what would not. She can take it from me that throughout the summer the fruit growers were in considerable anxiety as to what was to happen. The fact that we had a good fruit year had nothing to do with it. There is not such a thing as a home producers' monopoly in apples and pears. Many things may be said against the apple and pear scheme when we come to discuss it, but it contains the seeds of an orderly scheme for the marketing of produce which will benefit the consumers, for whom the hon. Lady speaks, as well as the producers. The House should support a scheme which will improve the marketing of our fruit; there is a chance that in the long run we shall get what the hon. Lady wants.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. M. Philips Price: My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle), has raised a very important matter, one of great importance to the producers and to the consumers; but if the marketing Act is not allowed to operate for fruit, it is no use the fruit growers continuing to grow fruit at the present time. Anyone with fruit growing in his constituency knows of the chaos in the marketing of fruit. It is high time that something was done in the interests of both producers and consumers. From the point of view of the producer, there is a continuous glut at a certain time of the year which is disastrous for him, and at other times there is a scarcity which is certainly of no use to him and is very disastrous for the consumer.
My hon. Friend said that she could not buy Cox's Orange at Christmas, except at ruinous prices. Cox's Orange are a very

special class of fruit and fetch very high prices at all times, particularly at Christmas, but if marketing were more orderly, it would be possible to get other varieties besides Cox's Orange, such as Laxton's Superb and Ellison's Orange, which were selling at from 10d. to Is., and 1s. 2d. at the outside, at that time in the markets of the West of England. Our hope is that it will be possible to get all of these varieties over England when we have a marketing scheme which is working properly, and shall not be dependent upon Cox's Orange alone, for although they are extremely popular they are by no means the only apple which come on the market at that season.
What we really want is to see that the marketing scheme comes into operation as soon as possible. It will enable imports to be controlled in such a way as not to injure the producer and imports to be admitted at times when the home market is getting scarce of fruit, so that the consumer will be able to get what he wants. As things are at present, it is impossible to secure an orderly regulated marketing, and only by putting into force the Marketing Act, 1930, is there any hope of remedying the situation.

11.20 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): I am in some difficulty, as I indicated to you earlier, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in that the apple and pear draft scheme, as submitted by the producers as they have a perfect right to do under the Act is at the moment only a draft. The Ministry of Agriculture have a definite obligation to follow a procedure laid down by the Act, which involves referring the scheme to a public inquiry if any objections are made. That has not yet begun. It will then involve my right hon. Friend in considering the recommendations of the Commissioner who holds the inquiry, making certain decisions about them, referring them back to the producers, if necessary, and in due course bringing the scheme before the House. Then the House will have an opportunity to discuss it, and my right hon. Friend or myself will be in a position to explain it before the House.
Therefore, I am sure that hon. Members will understand why I cannot tonight discuss the points made by my


hon. Friend about the draft scheme which is so far off, and on which we shall have to exercise something in the nature of a quasi-judicial function. Therefore, I hope nobody will think I am being discourteous if I do not deal with the provisions of that draft scheme. There are, however, one or two general points in the remarks of my hon. Friend with which I might deal.
So far as the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Scheme is concerned, the Board is already set up following the passage of the scheme through this House last year. There are not only two Ministerial nominees, as my hon. Friend suggested. In addition to Mrs. Wills and Mr. Shingfield, whom she mentioned, there is also Mr. Latimer, who is a chartered accountant, and Mr. Cunningham, who is a business man from Scotland, forming a strong team of Ministerial representatives on that Board.
The whole point about these boards is that the consumer safeguards are not limited to the three or four Ministerial nominees on the board. There are the powers given under Sections 2 and 4 of the Act, which my hon. Friend did not mention, giving the Minister very firm powers if the board were to do things which seemed to be against the consumer interest. There is the provision for a consumers' committee to be set up specially to look after the interests of consumers. There is the provision for the advisory committee of the trade to be set up to look after trade interests, and there is the committee of investigation for England and another for Scotland covering all schemes under the Marketing Acts—and a powerful committee it is—to which complaints can be referred by anybody who thinks something is being done by any one of the marketing boards which offends the interests of somebody else.

Mr. David Jones: No workers?

Mr. Brown: Oh yes, there is a workers' representative on each one of the marketing boards, and there is a trade union representative on the standing committee of investigation. So there are considerable consumer safeguards, which my hon. Friend did not mention. She said that the Tomato Board has not yet started

to function. That is quite true, but it has been busy doing the preliminary organising background work so that it will be in a position to deal with the crop when it comes along.
My hon. Friend went on to argue that because that is so we ought not to be considering the setting up of a new scheme for some other commodity. The point is that, having passed the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1949—for which I believe she voted—which amended the earlier Acts, we have no alternative. The Marketing Act gave the producers the power to submit schemes. If the producers choose to exercise their power, then my right hon. Friend must take certain action and, therefore, all that we are proposing to do is exactly what the Act of Parliament requires.

Mrs. Castle: Surely part of the power of the Minister to make modifications to the scheme would be to delay it?

Mr. Brown: No. If the Minister receives a scheme submitted by the producers, then the Minister must observe the rest of the procedure of the Act which requires him to allow time for objections, hold a public inquiry if objections are received and go through all the other things culminating in laying the scheme before the House.
Nor do I accept the suggestion that what happens in regard to tomatoes is in any way to be regarded as the pilot line for apples and pears. The Marketing Act specifically permits schemes for all those crops for which producers wish to submit schemes. Having seen a good deal of the horticultural industry at first hand, I believe there is a lot to be said for a marketing scheme for apples and pears being established at the earliest possible moment. At the end of this week I am going to Wisbech to meet horticulturalists there, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, East (Mrs. Castle) would find the other side of the story put before her if she were to undertake similar approaches to horticulturalists.
We shall go through with the scheme. We shall consider fairly the proposals put forward and my right hon. Friend will take care that what is ultimately done will be in a form defensive of the interests of everybody. The consumer will be protected, not only by the Ministerial


nominees on the Board, but by the other powers to which I have referred. Because in this way we shall put right the marketing problems at the producer's end, I believe we shall necessarily confer a benefit on the consumer and make it correspondingly easier to deal with the retail distribution when the Government are ready to do so.
I believe that what we have done already in the marketing field has been of considerable advantage to the consumer. We went into the whole argument when discussing the 1949 Act and the Tomato and Cucumber Scheme. There is

no reason to think that the scheme now being drafted will be in any way different from previous schemes. I would ask my hon. Friend in the meantime not to queer the pitch by overstating the case, as she did so clearly tonight about the price of apples about Christmas time.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-Seven Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.